Case Summary (G.R. No. 133657)
Facts
Remington filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against ISL, impleading Ferro and British Steel as alternative defendants under Rule 3 §13. The complaint alleged breach of contract but contained no specific averment against British Steel.
Trial Court Proceedings
ISL and British Steel separately moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. On April 7, 1997, the RTC denied both motions and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. ISL filed its answer; British Steel instead petitioned for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
British Steel argued that the complaint lacked any factual or legal allegations against it. Remington sought to amend its complaint as a matter of right under Rule 10 §2. The trial court noted the amended complaint and suspended proceedings pending resolution of the certiorari petition. On February 24, 1998, the Court of Appeals granted the writ, finding grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, and ordered dismissal of the complaint against British Steel without prejudice. A motion for reconsideration was denied on April 28, 1998.
Issue
Whether a plaintiff may amend a complaint as a matter of right under Rule 10 §2 after a defendant has filed a special civil action to dismiss it but before any answer has been served.
Applicable Law
- Rule 10 §2: A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served.
- Rule 10 §3: Further amendments after an answer require leave of court to prevent prejudice to the defending party.
- Amendment of pleadings is favored to decide cases on substantive merits, avoid multiplicity of suits, and conserve judicial resources.
Analysis
Under Rule 10 §2, Remington retained the absolute right to amend its complaint against British Steel before an answer. The pendency of a motion or petition attacking the complaint’s sufficiency does not extinguish this right. Denying the amendment would render Rule 10 §2 meaningless, for any defendant could moot it by
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 133657)
Facts of the Case
- On August 21, 1996, Remington Industrial Sales Corporation (Remington) filed a complaint for sum of money and damages based on breach of contract, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-79674 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 22 (Judge Marino M. De la Cruz).
- Industrial Steels, Ltd. (ISL) was impleaded as principal defendant; Ferro Trading GmbH and British Steel (Asia) Ltd. (British Steel) were joined as alternative defendants under Section 13, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The complaint contained no substantive averment against British Steel other than a jurisdictional allegation under Section 13, Rule 3.
Trial Court Proceedings
- ISL and British Steel separately moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- On April 7, 1997, the RTC denied both motions and likewise denied the subsequent motions for reconsideration.
- ISL filed its answer to the complaint; British Steel did not answer but instead elevated the matter via a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 44529).
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
- British Steel contended that the complaint lacked any valid cause of action against it aside from the Section 13, Rule 3 averment.
- Remington filed a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, asserting its right to amend before any responsive pleading.
- Remington likewise filed a manifestation in the CA, requesting suspension of the special proceedings pending action on its Motion