Tweet Tweet

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > July 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992 -CONTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS:

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Search

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

ChanRobles Intellectual PropertyDivision

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 79903. July 23, 1992.]

CONTECH CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JERRY A. KHO,WEIJEN A. KHO and WILLEN A. KHO, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and GREENBELT

SQUARE, INC., Respondents.

Luna, Sison & Manas for Petitioner.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS; RULE; SATISFIED IN CASE ATBAR. — Under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, a party is given a right to file anamended pleading within the time and upon the conditions specified in the rule and without thenecessity of obtaining leave of court since a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course atany time before a responsive pleading is served. This rule expressly authorizes the amendment ofpleadings in order that all matters in the action in dispute between the parties may be completelydetermined in a single proceeding. The amended complaint, in the instant case, was filed not to delaynor alter the cause of action of the first complaint but rather to obviate the splitting of the cause ofaction and to obtain a speedy determination of the controversy in one proceeding without regard totechnicality. The amended complaint merely impleaded Metropolitan as a party defendant in the firstcomplaint and included in said complaint the cause of action alleged in the second complaint which wasalready dismissed. Furthermore, petitioners had not yet filed any responsive pleading to the firstcomplaint when respondent corporation filed the motion to amend its complaint.

2. ID.; ID.; CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT; NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE AT BAR; REASON THEREFOR.— Petitioners contend that the appellate court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in admitting the amended complaint of the respondentCorporation, considering that the previous dismissal of the second complaint for violating the ruleagainst splitting a cause of action barred its reinstitution by the amendment of the first complaint. Insaid judgment, it was held that there was a splitting of a cause of action in the first and secondcomplaint, therefore the rule against splitting of a cause of action barred the second complaint asenunciated in the cases of Jimenez v. Camara [107 Phil. 590] and City of Bacolod v. San Miguel Brewery,[29 SCRA 819] resulting in an outright denial of the amended complaint.

D E C I S I O N

NOCON, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to annul and set aside thedecision dated July 24, 1987 of the Court of Appeals 1 directing the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, BranchCLXIV in Civil Case No. 45321 to admit the amended complaint of respondent Greenbelt Square, Inc.and to proceed with the trial of said case.

It appears on record that on August 8, 1980, petitioner Contech Construction Technology &Development Corporation, as contractor, and private respondent Greenbelt Square, Inc., as owner,entered into an Agreement whereby the former undertook the construction, equipping, furnishing andsupplying of materials for a theater and restaurant building for consideration of P20,069,694.00. 2

Pursuant to said Agreement, petitioners secured from the Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. (Phil-British for brevity), a bond of P2,000,000.00 under Bond No. 0746 to guarantee the payment of thelabor and materials used in connection with the construction project, 3 from the Metropolitan InsuranceCo. (Metropolitan for brevity); P4,000,000.00 under Surety No. 80/G(13)00853 to secure the full andfaithful performance of the petitioners 4 and Surety No. 80/G(10)00457 for P2,000,000.00 to guaranteethe supply of cement and steel bars needed for said project. 5

July-1992 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 94785 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.ELPIDIO A. LOSTE

G.R. No. 98243 July 1, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ARADA v.COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 98432 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.VICTORIO PLETADO

G.R. No. 100198 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. CHARLIE VILLORENTE, ET AL.

G.R. No. 100772 July 1, 1992 - ALEX GO v. COURT OFAPPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 94588 July 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERALASSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC (POEA), ET AL.

G.R. No. 96745 July 2, 1992 - MANUEL MELGAR DE LACRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,ET AL.

A.M. No. MTJ-90-490 July 3, 1992 - YOLANDADIPUTADO-BAGUIO v. FELIPE T. TORRES

A.C. No. 2349 July 3, 1992 - DOROTHY B. TERRE v.ATTY. JORDAN TERRE

G.R. Nos. 37012-13 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THEPHIL. v. GERARDO NOMAT, SR.

G.R. No. 64284 July 3, 1992 - JOSE S. VELASQUEZ v.MARTIN NERY

G.R. No. 69971 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.ERNESTO C. LUVENDINO

G.R. Nos. 76818-19 July 3, 1992 - CDCP TEWU v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

On October 21, 1981, respondent Corporation terminated the Agreement upon petitioners’ failure tocomply with the terms and conditions of said Agreement. 6 Respondent Corporation, likewise, sent Phil-British and Metropolitan notices of claim for petitioners’ failure to perform their part of the Agreement.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Petitioners, thereafter, withdrew their men and equipments from the construction site and respondentCorporation contracted the services of R.N. Construction Co., Inc. to finish the building project. However,upon petitioners’ refusal to pay their obligation to respondent Corporation, the latter, on March 24,1982, simultaneously filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal who separate complaints againstpetitioners and their sureties for breach of contract.

In the first complaint which was docketed as Civil Case No. 45321, respondent Corporation hadpetitioners and Phil-British as party defendants for the collection of a sum of money, while the secondcomplaint which was docketed as Civil Case No. 45322, petitioners and Metropolitan were also partydefendants for the collection of a sum of money.

On June 3, 1982, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint on the ground of thependency of the first complaint likewise between the same parties for the same cause, which motionwas denied by the trial court. However, upon appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court, 7 the appellatecourt on May 4, 1984 held that there was a splitting of a cause of action when the two complaints werefiled simultaneously, hence, the orders of the trial court dated May 17, 1983 and July 25, 1983 denyingthe motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration were nullified. Said decision of the appellatecourt became final on August 2, 1984.

On August 8, 1984, respondent Corporation filed before the lower court where the first complaint waspending, a motion for leave to amend its complaint and to consolidate the two cases, which motion wasdenied on October 3, 1984. Accordingly, respondent Corporation filed a motion for reconsideration onOctober 29, 1984, which was also denied on January 13, 1987.

Thereafter, respondent Corporation filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the appellate courtalleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying its motion to amend thecomplaint.

The appellate court, on July 24, 1987, rendered a decision giving due course to respondentCorporation’s petition and directed the trial court to admit the amended complaint of the respondentcorporation. Consequently, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on August 11, 1987 which wasdenied on August 27, 1987.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioners contend that the appellate court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack of jurisdiction in admitting the amended complaint of the respondent Corporation,considering that the previous dismissal of the second complaint for violating the rule against splitting acause of action barred its reinstitution by the amendment of the first complaint.

Section 2, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading isserved or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has notbeen placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at any time within ten (10) days after it isserved." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Under this rule, a party is given a right to file an amended pleading within the time and upon theconditions specified in the rule and without the necessity of obtaining leave of court since a party mayamend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Thisrule expressly authorizes the amendment of pleadings in order that all matters in the action in disputebetween the parties may be completely determined in a single proceeding. The amended complaint, inthe instant case, was filed not to delay nor alter the cause of action of the first complaint but rather toobviate the splitting of the cause of action and to obtain a speedy determination of the controversy inone proceeding without regard to technicality. The amended complaint merely impleaded Metropolitanas a party defendant in the first complaint and included in said complaint the cause of action alleged inthe second complaint which was already dismissed. Furthermore, petitioners had not yet filed anyresponsive pleading to the first complaint when respondent corporation filed the motion to amend itscomplaint. As correctly held by the appellate court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is a recognized rule of procedure that pleadings shall be construed liberally so as to rendersubstantial justice to the parties and in order that actual merits of the controversy may speedily bedetermined without regard to technicalities and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. Thejudicial attitude has always been favorable and liberal in allowing amendments to a pleading. Therationale behind the rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the real controversies betweenthe parties are presented, their rights are determined and the case decided on the merits withoutunnecessary delay. When the situation is such that if the proposed amendment is not allowed, anotheraction would be instituted, thus making two actions, two trials, and two appeals possible and probable,the said amendment should be admitted. Hence, should the trial court find the allegations in thepleadings to be inadequate, it should allow the party concerned to file proper amendments to pleadingsin accordance with the mandate of the Rules of Court that amendments to pleadings are favored andshould be liberally allowed.

Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case, there is no doubt that the respondent Courtcommitted a grave and serious abuse of discretion in not admitting the amended complaint. The recordsof the case indicate that the motion for leave to admit the amended complaint was filed before aresponsive pleading was filed. In fact, no responsive pleading has yet been filed by the privaterespondents. Their opposition filed on August 15, 1984 is not a responsive pleading within thecontemplation of the rule. Consequently, the filing by the petitioner of an amended complaint waserroneously denied by the respondent Court, the same being a matter of right. Indeed, in such asituation, an error of the trial court in refusing such amendment is controllable by mandamus.

Moreover, the Court, after assiduously examining and comparing the original and amended complaint, isof the opinion that the amendment sought to be included did not in any manner change the cause ofaction nor was it intended for delay, which considerations appear to be the only ground for denying amotion for leave to amend under section 3 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court." 8

Petitioners also contend that the rule of conclusiveness of judgment is applicable in this case in view ofthe finality of the judgment of the appellate court dismissing the second complaint which was beingreintroduced by a mere amendment of the first complaint. In said judgment, it was held that there wasa splitting of a cause of action in the first and second complaint, therefore the rule against splitting of acause of action barred the second complaint as enunciated in the cases of Jimenez v. Camara 9 and Cityof Bacolod v. San Miguel Brewery, 10 resulting in an outright denial of the amended complaint.

We do not agree.

G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.DANILO P. MANANSALA

G.R. No. 88912 July 3, 1992 - TIERRA INT’L. CORP. v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.EPIFANIO ARMENTANO

G.R. No. 92136 July 3, 1992 - EDGARDO DYTIAPCO v.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 92391 July 3, 1992 - PFVI INC. v. RUBEN D.TORRES

G.R. No. 93016 July 3, 1992 - UNITED ALUMINUMFABRICATORS v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

G.R. No. 94566 July 3, 1992 - BA FINANCE CORP. v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 95048 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.ROGER MONTILLA

G.R. No. 96054 July 3, 1992 - MARIANO M. LAZATINv. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96628 July 3, 1992 - CEFERINO INCIONG v.EUFEMIO DOMINGO

G.R. No. 96825 July 3, 1992 - RAVA DEVELOPMENTCORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96865 July 3, 1992 - MARCELINO KIAMCO v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96410 July 3, 1992 - NATIONAL POWERCORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992 - CONCEPCION DUMAGATv. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992 - GAUDENCIO T. CENA v.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 98440 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.JAIME LAURORA, ET AL

G.R. No. 101208 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. HENRY R. TOMENTOS

G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. 101526 July 3, 1992 - RODELA D.TORREGOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 101703 July 3, 1992 - LUCRECIA DELA ROSAv. ROSARIO M. MERCADO

G.R. No. 101724 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 101808 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. RAMON BOLANOS

G.R. No. 101919 July 3, 1992 - RODOLFO ALCANTARAv. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992 - LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, v.ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

G.R. No. 102494 July 3, 1992 - MAXIMO FELICILDA v.NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

G.R. No. 102606 July 3, 1992 - LINO R. TOPACIO v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZv. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 49282 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.GILBERT PIZARRO

G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.ERNIE C. LAPAN

G.R. No. 91879 July 6, 1992 - HEIRS OF MAXIMOREGOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 100168 July 8, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 101619 July 8, 1992 - SANYO PHIL.WORKERS UNION v. POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES

G.R. No. 41420 July 10, 1992 - CMS LOGGING, INC. v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 89554 July 10, 1992 - JUANITO A. ROSARIOv. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 95253 July 10, 1992 - CONSUELO ARANETAv. COURT OF APPEALS

The rulings in the aforementioned cases are not applicable in the case at bar since both cases refer to asituation wherein the second complaint, which cause of action should be included in the first complaint,was filed after a final decision was rendered on the merits. In this case, the first and second complaintwere not yet set for pre-trial or trial because petitioners had not yet filed any responsive pleading toboth complaints, therefore the amendment should be allowed since said amendment will not delay theproceeding and there was no change in respondent Corporation’s cause of action.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED forlack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., No part, in view of prior relationship with private Respondent.

Endnotes:

1. In CA-G.R. SP No. 11226, penned by Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. with the concurrence ofJustice Josue N. Bellosillo and Justice Oscar M. Herrera.

2. Id., at p. 87.

3. Id., at pp. 91-92.

4. Id., at pp. 62-63.

5. Id., at pp. 64-65.

6. Id., at p. 66.

7. AC-G.R. SP No. 01578, penned by Justice Lino M. Patajo and concurred in by JusticeSimeon M. Gopengco and Justice Jose F. Racela, Jr.

8. CA’s Decision, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 30-31.

9. 107 Phil. 590.

10. 29 SCRA 819.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 19081909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 19161917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 19241925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 19321933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 19401941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 19481949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 19561957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 19641965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 19721973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 19801981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 19881989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19961997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20122013 2014 2015

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

G.R. Nos. 97144-45 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THEPHIL. v. JUANITO "BEN" VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. 98430 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. ROSALINO NECERIO

G.R. No. 98467 July 10, 1992 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO.v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992 - CONRADO BUNAG,JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THEPHIL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

G.R. No. 100866 July 14, 1992 - REBECCA BOYER-ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 75879 July 15, 1992 - VIRGINIASECRETARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONSCOMMISSION

G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. LAROY T. BUENAFLOR

G.R. No. 97147 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. ALEX QUERRER

G.R. No. 100482 July 15, 1992 lab

NEW VALLEY TIMES PRESS v. NATIONAL LABORRELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 68102 July 16, 1992 - GEORGE MCKEE v.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 89265 July 17, 1992 - ARTURO G. EUDELA v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992 - SUN INSURANCEOFFICE, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 94493 July 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ATIENZA,SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 95778 July 17, 1992 - SKYWORLDCONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC. v. SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMM.

G.R. Nos. 64725-26 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THEPHIL. v. SALVADOR ALACAR

G.R. No. 77396 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. LEO T. VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992 - DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

G.R. Nos. 93411-12 July 20, 1992 - ENCARNACIONFLORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. 94534 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. RODRIGO BIGCAS, ET AL

G.R. No. 95844 July 20, 1992 - COMMANDO SECURITYAGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 96712 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. 104678 July 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THEPHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. Nos. 95254-55 July 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THEPHIL. v. MARCOS U. ABUYAN, JR.

G.R. No. 96091 July 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. ALFREDO L. HOBLE

G.R. No. 73679 July 23, 1992 - HONESTO B.VILLAROSA v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992 - CONTECHCONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 82293 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. ROLANDO B. MADRIAGA

G.R. No. 85490 July 23, 1992 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC.v. JESUS C. SEBASTIAN

G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992 - ARTURO DE GUZMANv. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 95067 July 23, 1992 - GERARDO ARANAS v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 95900 July 23, 1992 - JULIUS C. OUANO v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 96914 July 23, 1992 - CECILIA U. LEDESMAv. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 100493 July 23, 1992 - HEIRS OF JAIMEBINUYA v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR.

G.R. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 - ARMANDO V. SIERRAv. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 90318 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. PORFERIO IGNACIO

G.R. No. 91847 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. CARLITO MARTOS

G.R. No. 97816 July 24, 1992 - MERRILL LYNCHFUTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

A.C. No. 1129 July 27, 1992 - PERFECTO MENDOZA v.ALBERTO B. MALA

G.R. No. 97092 July 27, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA SALESAND ADVERTISING UNION v. HON. SECRETARY OFLABOR, ET AL

A.C. No. 2984 July 29, 1992 - RODOLFO M.BERNARDO, JR. v. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

G.R. No. 40145 July 29, 1992 - SEVERO SALES v.COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 50260 July 29, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDSv. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 68037 July 29, 1992 - PARAMOUNTINSURANCE CORP. v. MAXIMO M. JAPZON

G.R. No. 94547 July 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.v. DAVID S. SAULO

G.R. No. 94590 July 29, 1992 - CHINA AIRLINES LTD.v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992 - RAMON J. VELORIA,ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Copyright © 1998 - 20151998 - 2015 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED