I. ASPECTOS TEÓRICO-PRÁCTICOS SOBRE LA ENSEÑANZA EN EL PRIMER GRADO
5. Atención a la diversidad en el salón de clases: un ejercicio de inclusión real
Amendments In general
Pleadings may be amended
(1)
by adding or striking out an allegationor the name of any party, or
(2)
by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respectPurpose: So that the actual merits of the
controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. Liberality
BARFEL DEV’T. CORP v. CA (223 SCRA 268)
As a general policy, liberality in allowing amendments is greatest in the early stages of a law suit, decreases as it progresses and changes at times to a strictness amounting to a prohibition. This is further restricted by the condition that the amendment should not prejudice the adverse party or place him at a disadvantage.
FACTS: Barfel sold to Reginas two parcels of land with two houses erected thereon in Ayala Alabang, stipulating that the Barfel will apply the payment of the cash portion of the purchase price to the removal of any and all liens on the properties. The contract stated that apart from a BPI mortgage and the Deed of Restrictions annotated at the back of the title, the subject property was free from all liens. Reginas made the downpayment upon signing the agreement.
It was later discovered that there was apparently a second mortgage with the PISO/Central Bank. Upon this information, Victor Barrios assured the buyer that the second mortgage has been reduced and that he will submit the necessary documents to
support a legal and valid acceptable arrangement for the release of such mortgage. Thereafter, the PSB granted Reginas loan, which again subjected aforesaid properties to a mortgage. PSB now promises to pay directly to BPI from the proceeds of the loan and pay the sellers the purchase price. The latter conformed to the arrangement.
Given the prior assurance of a workable arrangement regarding the Central Bank mortgage, the buyers now manifested its willingness to pay P2M ahead of the proceeds for the PSB loan. Notwithstanding such negotiations however, the sellers here are in gross and evident bad faith and malicious breach of contract for they have failed to comply with the obligation to release the second mortgage. BPI further averred that the sellers actually disauthorized them to consummate the transaction despite previous arrangements.
Reginas and Zaragoza filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Barfel and the Spouses Barrios. Pre-trial was conducted and both parties presented evidence.
During Barfel’s presentation, Reginas filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and motion to admit the same. The amendment sought to implead PISO bank as additional party defendant and compel it to accept payment of the existing second mortgage from Reginas, since no complete relief can be had unless the second mortgage is released.
Barfel opposed. The RTC admitted the amended complaint. The CA sustained the lower court’s order saying that the amendment was made without intent to delay the action. The essence of liberal construction was accorded by the courts.
ISSUE: Whether the amended complaint
should be allowed
NO. The amendment was made with intent to delay the action and substantially alters the cause of action of Reginas and the defense of Barfel. After the case is set for hearing, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. Such leave may be refused if it appears that the motion was made with intent to delay the action or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered. (Sec. 3, Rule 10)
The amendment sought by private respondents, which is to include a new party defendant at a late stage in the proceeding, is not a formal but a substantial one. Private respondents will have to present additional evidence on the PISO second mortgage. The effect would be to start trial anew with the
parties recasting their theories of the case. The correct amount of the second mortgage owed by petitioners to PISO bank (apparently a controverted point), would have to be litigated and this could be time consuming.
As a general policy, liberality in allowing amendments is greatest in the early stages of a law suit, decreases as it progresses and changes at times to a strictness amounting to a prohibition. This is further restricted by the condition that the amendment should not prejudice the adverse party or place him at a disadvantage.
Form
When any pleading is amended, the following shall be filed:
(1) a new copy of the entire pleading,
(2)
incorporating the amendments, whichshall be indicated by appropriate marks,. (Sec. 7, Rule 13)
Effect
An amended pleading supersedes the pleading it amends.
However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader; and
Claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleadingshall be deemed waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 10)
Kinds
Formal amendment
A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action,
at its initiative or on motion,
provided so no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party. (Sec. 4, Rule 10)Substantial amendments Matter of right
A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right
at any time before a responsivepleading is served or,
in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served. (Sec. 2, Rule 10)Matter of discretion
Except as provided in the next preceding section, Substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court.
But such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay. Substantial amendments may be made only
(1) upon motion filed in court, and
(2)
after notice to the adverseparty, and an opportunity to be heard. (Sec. 3, Rule 10)
To conform to evidence
Amendment to conform to evidence
Issues not raised by pleadings may be deemed as if they were raised:
(1)
When issues are not raised by the pleadings, and(2)
They are tried with the express or implied consent of the partiesSuch amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary
to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made
(1)
upon motion of any party(2) at any time, even after judgment;
Failure to amend
Failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.
Amendment to authorize presentation of evidence
This amendment may be made
if evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be served thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. (Sec. 5, Rule 10)
SWAGMAN HOTELS & TRAVEL, INC. v. CA (2008)
The curing effect under Section 5 of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable only if a cause of action exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts. A complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case is pending.
FACTS: Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc., obtained from respondent Neal B. Christian loans evidenced by three promissory notes dated 1997, each in the amount of $50,000 payable after three years (200) from its date with a 15% interest per annum payable every three months. Later on, Christian informed the Swagman that he was terminating the loans and demanded from the latter payment in the total amount of $150,000 plus the unpaid interests of $13,500.
In 1999, Christian filed a complaint for the unpaid loans, alleging that petitioner, instead of paying the 15% monthly interest, started paying only 6%. Swagman filed an Answer, raising as defense the lack of cause of action of the principal obligations because the three promissory notes were not yet due and demandable.
The trial court ruled that the first two promissory notes were already due and demandable and ordered Swagman to pay the amount of the checks plus 6% interest. It ruled that although at the time of the complaint, the notes were not yet due and demandable, it was cured when they became due during the trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not lack of cause of action
may be cured by evidence presented during the trial and amendments to conform to the evidence
NO. Amendments of pleadings are allowed under Rule 10 in order that the actual merits of a case may be determined in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner without regard to technicalities, and that all other matters included in the case may be determined in a single proceeding, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits. Section 5 thereof applies to situations wherein evidence not within the issues raised in the pleadings is presented by the parties during the trial, and to conform to such evidence the pleadings are subsequently amended on motion of a party.
The curing effect under Section 5 is applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the
complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts.
It thus follows that a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion seasonably filed by the defendant. The underlying reason for this rule is that a person should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer for complaints which are immature.
Remedies
Periods to answer Amendments
Amendment as a matter of right—
The defendant shall answer the same within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Amendment not a matter of right—
The defendant shall answer within ten (10) days from notice of the Order admitting the same.
An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint, if no new answer is filed.
Applicability
This Rule shall apply to the answer to
(1)
an amended counterclaim, (2) amended cross-claim,(3)
amended third (fourth, etc.)— party complaint, and(4)
amended complaint-in-intervention. (Sec. 3, Rule 11)Supplemental complaint
This may be answered within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the same,
unless a different period is fixed by the court.
If no new or supplemental answer isfiled—
The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint. (Sec. 7, Rule 11)
Supplemental pleadings
A supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented may be permitted
(2)
reasonable notice and (3) upon such terms as are justPeriod to answer
The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading. (Sec. 6, Rule 11)
Distinguished from amended pleadings
SHOEMART, INC. v. CA (190 SCRA 189, 1990)
A supplemental pleading supplies deficiencies in aid of an original pleading not to entirely substitute the latter.
FACTS: Anson Emporium Corp. (Anson) leased from Shoemart portion of a building for two years. The lease stipulated that if after termination of the lease, Shoemart permits Anson to remain, the lease shall be understood to be on a month to month basis in the absence of a contrary written agreement.
Anson remained in possession after the two-year period but on an increased rental. Four years later, Shoemart terminated the lease and gave notice to Anson to vacate, which the latter refused. A complaint for ejectment was filed against him with the MTC. Shoemart asked for, and was granted, leave to file supplemental complaint which alleged that the rental of all tenants of the premises had been increased to P45,142.00, which Anson refused to pay. Anson alleged that Shoemart’s claim for increased rentals has been barred. MTC ruled for Anson.
The RTC reversed the judgment and ordered Anson to vacate the premises and to pay P34,622 and P45,142 respectively for the two lease agreements, with 1% interest from October 1977. Shoemart filed a motion for reconsideration of the award of damages, saying it is less than what is really due. RTC granted this motion.
CA affirmed the ejectment of respondent but reduced the damages awarded by stating that the 1% interest will start to run from October 1987. Private respondent sought the correction of the clerical error regarding date of the effectivity of the payment for damages. Said motion was granted
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration seeking the reinstatement of the RTC’s decision was denied. CA ruled that petitioner’s claim for damages is limited to the P45,142 alleged in the supplemental complaint.
ISSUE: Whether the subsequently amended
complaint in the case at bar renders the original complaint abandoned or inexistent
NO. Petitioner's recovery is not limited by the amount of P45,142.00 prayed for in the supplemental complaint as increased rental. This is not a case of a complaint subsequently amended, the effect of which is to render the original complaint abandoned or inexistent and let the amendment take form as the sole substitute upon which the case stands for trial.
A supplemental complaint or pleading supplies deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, not to entirely substitute the latter. A perusal of the original complaint shows that it prayed, among others, that the private respondent be ordered to pay petitioner P34,622.00 and all other rentals and charges that may be due until respondent vacates the premises. Petitioner, therefore, did not foreclose its right to demand increased rentals that may be recovered expressed in terms of the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the real property. Unlike in an amended complaint, the original complaint exists side by side with the supplemental complaint.
The supplemental pleading merely served to aver supervening facts which were then not ripe for judicial relief when the original pleading was filed. Supplemental pleadings are meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with the latter.
The failure of petitioner to amend its complaint or file additional supplemental pleadings to allege subsequent rental increases is of no moment.
In view of the failure of private respondent to object to the presentation of evidence showing that there were four (4) rental increases on the subject premises although three (3) of said increases are not alleged in the pleadings, judgment may be rendered validly as regards the said increases or issues which shall be considered as if they have been raised in the pleadings. As found by the RTC, private respondent did not controvert the evidence submitted by petitioner in determining the fair rental value of the premises including those imposed on all other tenants of petitioner occupying the Makati Arcade. If, indeed, the rental increases were unconscionable, respondent should have at least presented evidence to substantiate its claim. The burden of proof to show that the rental demanded is unconscionable or exorbitant rests upon private respondent as the lessee.
Private respondent failed to discharge its burden when it omitted to present any
evidence at all on what it considers is the fair rental value other than what were submitted by petitioner. As a matter of fact, all the other tenants did not question the reasonableness of the rental increases