Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12844)
Facts:
The case of Melecio Arranz vs. Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. (G.R. No. L-12844) was decided on June 30, 1960. The plaintiff, Melecio Arranz, initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant, Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., seeking to recover a total of P14,200. This amount was claimed to have been paid by Arranz under circumstances where he asserted there was no obligation to do so. In addition to the principal amount, Arranz sought P2,000 for attorney's fees and P10,000 for moral and exemplary damages, along with costs. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it failed to state a cause of action. The trial court granted this motion, leading to the dismissal of Arranz's complaint. Following the dismissal, Arranz filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. He subsequently appealed the dismissal and the denial of his motion for reconsideration to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12844)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Plaintiff and Appellant: Melecio Arranz
- Defendant and Appellee: Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc.
Nature of the Case:
- The plaintiff filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover:
- P14,200, which he claimed to have paid to the defendant without any obligation to do so.
- P2,000 for attorney's fees.
- P10,000 for moral and exemplary damages.
- Costs of the suit.
- The plaintiff filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover:
Procedural History:
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal, holding that the complaint lacked essential allegations.
- The plaintiff filed multiple motions for reconsideration and sought to amend his complaint, all of which were denied.
Key Allegations:
- The plaintiff failed to allege in his complaint that the defendant, as a surety, promised to pay the principal's loan or obligation.
- The sum sought to be recovered as a premium was deemed due to the defendant and collectible from the plaintiff while the surety's liability subsisted.
Issue:
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint after the trial court and the Supreme Court had already dismissed it for failure to state a cause of action.
- Whether a motion to dismiss constitutes a "responsive pleading" under Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, thereby precluding the plaintiff from amending his complaint.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the lower court, denying the plaintiff's motions for reconsideration and his request to amend the complaint. The Court held that:
- An order of dismissal based on a motion to dismiss is an adjudication of the case on the merits.
- After such an order, the party whose pleading was adjudged defective may amend it. However, if the party insists that the pleading is not defective and appeals the dismissal, which is subsequently upheld by the appellate court, they are no longer entitled to amend the pleading.
- A motion to dismiss is not considered a "responsive pleading" under Section 1, Rule 17, but the plaintiff's right to amend is extinguished once the dismissal is affirmed on appeal.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)