G.R. No. L-59582 - Paman vs. Diaz

Private respondent Rodrigo Diaz filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Davao against petitioner Jesus M. Paman for damages.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 13294 and assigned to Branch III, presided by respondent Judge Pacita Canizares-Nye.

July 24, 1980: Diaz filed the complaint.
September 19, 1980: Paman, through counsel, filed an answer with counterclaim.
May 25, 1981: The trial court held a pre-trial conference.
Because the parties could not arrive at an amicable settlement, the court issued an order deeming the pre-trial stage terminated and setting the trial on the merits on September 15, 1981 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning, while allowing the parties to still submit any amicable settlement that may be entered into.

August 31, 1981: Paman, through counsel, filed a motion to admit an attached amended answer.
Diaz opposed the motion.
September 7, 1981: Judge Canizares-Nye denied the motion in an order stating that (a) Diaz’s opposition filed on September 3, 1981 was considered, and (b) because the pre-trial conference had been held on May 25, 1981 and terminated on that date, the motion was denied.
September 30, 1981: Paman filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that Diaz had been fully paid by Standard Insurance the amount he was trying to recover from Paman.
November 12, 1981: Judge Canizares-Nye denied the motion for reconsideration.

In Diaz’s complaint, he sought recovery of damages that he had spent for his car after it was bumped by the vehicle belonging to Paman.
In Paman’s original answer, he claimed among others that the repair costs for damages were fictitiously bloated.
In the motion to admit the attached amended answer, Paman alleged:

He discovered after filing the answer that Diaz had claimed the repair expenses from his own damage insurer, Standard Insurance, totaling P4,000.01.
Diaz executed a Release of Claim in favor of Standard Insurance, whereby Diaz was subrogated to the insurer’s rights of recovery and thus was barred from filing the suit by express stipulation.
Diaz filed the complaint in bad faith because he had no mo...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the trial court gravely erred in denying Paman’s motion to admit an amended answer with counterclaim.

Whether the denial was justified on the ground that the pre-trial stage had already been terminated and the case set for trial on the merits.
Whether the proposed amendment substantially altered the theory of the defense or was sought with intent to delay the action.

Whether the trial court should have allowed the amendment to present the real matter in dispute.

(Subscriber-Only)