G.R. No. 133657 - Remington Industrial Sales Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

Remington Industrial Sales Corporation (petitioner) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages for breach of contract on August 21, 1996 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 22.
Industrial Steels, Ltd. (ISL) was impleaded as principal defendant; Ferro Trading GmbH and British Steel (Asia) Ltd. (respondent) were impleaded as alternative defendants under Section 13, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

ISL and British Steel separately moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action; the RTC denied both the motion and the ensuing motion for reconsideration on April 7, 1997.
ISL filed its answer; British Steel filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 44529), contending the complaint lacked any averment of its liability.

Petitioner filed a motion to admit an amended complaint as a matter of right under Section 2, Rule 10, asserting no responsive pleading by British Steel had yet been served.
The RTC noted the amended complaint and held proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of the CA petition; the CA granted certiorari on February 24, 1998, dismissing the complaint against British Steel without prejudice, and denied reconsideration on April 28, 1998.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint against British Steel for lack of cause of action despite petitioner’s right to amend under Section 2, Rule 10.
Whether requiring refiling of the complaint against British Steel compels multiplicity of suits and usurps the trial court’s authority to rule on the amended complaint.