Title
Arranz vs. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-12844
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1960
Plaintiff sought recovery of payments and damages, but complaint dismissed for lacking essential allegations; Supreme Court upheld dismissal, barring amendments post-appeal.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12844)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiff and Appellant: Melecio Arranz
    • Defendant and Appellee: Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

  1. An order of dismissal based on a motion to dismiss is an adjudication of the case on the merits.
  2. 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.
  3. 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)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.