Lisam Enterprises, Inc. vs. Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.

670 SCRA 310, April 23, 2012

NATURE:
PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolution and order of the Regional
Trial Court
FACTS:
Lisam Enterprises, Inc. (LEI) acquired a residential lot in Legaspi City. Lolita was
a stockholder of LEI and a member of its Board of Directors. She is also designated as
its Corporate Secretary. Leandro A. Soriano and Lilian S. Soriano were married to each
other and also functioned as its president and treasurer respectively.
LEI acquired a residential lot in Legaspi City. Sometime later, spouses Soriano
obtained a loan from PCIB ( now BDO) and mortgaged the residential lot to secure the
loan. Lolita claimed that the mortgaged agreement was executed without authority of
the board of plaintiff LEI. To cure the defects of the mortgaged, spouses signed a Deed
of Assumption of Loans and Mortgage Obligations and Amendment of Mortgage;
wherein in said document, LEI was made to assume the P20 Million personal
indebtedness of the Spouses Soriano with BDO. Lolita claimed that there was no board
resolution that authorized the Spouses Soriano to create the deed. Furthermore,
Spouses Soriano falsified the signature of Lolita to make it appear that it was consented
by LEI.
The inability of the Spouses Soriano to pay their debt, the property was set for
auction/foreclosure sale.LEI filed a complaint against respondents for Annulment of
Mortgage with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary Injunction with
Damages with the RTC. The lower court issued a TRO and later issued a Writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining BDO from proceeding with the auction sale. BDO filed a
motion to dismiss. The RTC dismissed the complaint. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration and a motion to admit an amended complaint. The RTC
denied both motions.

Plaintiff filed petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC should have allowed the motion to admit an amended
complaint.
HELD:
Yes, plaintiff may amend their court with leave of court. It should be noted that
respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr. already filed
their Answer, to petitioners complaint, and the claims being asserted were made
against said parties. A responsive pleading having been filed, amendments to the
complaint may, therefore, be made only by leave of court and no longer as a matter of
right.
Amendments are generally favored, it would have been more fitting for the trial
court to extend such liberality towards petitioners by admitting the amended complaint
which was filed before the order dismissing the original complaint became final and
executory. It is quite apparent that since trial proper had not yet even begun, allowing
the amendment would not have caused any delay. Moreover, doing so would have
served the higher interest of justice as this would provide the best opportunity for the
issues among all parties to be thoroughly threshed out and the rights of all parties finally
determined. Hence, the Court overrules the trial courts denial of the motion to admit the
amended complaint, and orders the admission of the same.