128. SIASOCO vs CA.
trial of cases or prevent the circuity of action and
On January 14, 1997, private respondent Iglesia ni
Cristo filed civil suit for specific performance and
damages against petitioners Mario Siasoco, et al. and
Carissa Homes and Development Properties, Inc.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of
improper venue and lack of capacity to sue. On the
other hand, Carissa Homes filed its answer. Pending
resolution of petitioners Motion to Dismiss, private
respondent negotiated with Carissa Homes which
culminated in the purchase of the subject properties of
Carissa Homes by private respondent. On April 24,
1997, private respondent filed an Amended Complaint,
dropping Carissa Homes as one of the defendants and
changing their cause of action to damages only.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Strike Out Amended
Complaint, contending that the complaint cannot be
amended without leave of court, since a responsive
pleading had been filed. On August 11, 1997, the trial
court denied the said motion. On August 31, 1997,
petitioners filed a Motion for Suspension of Proceeding
pending the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss earlier
filed. Again, the trial court denied the second motion and
it ordered the petitioners to file their respective answers
within fifteen days from receipt of the order. Thus, the
petitioners questioned the orders of denial of their two
motions before the Court of Appeals. The appellate
court affirmed the two aforementioned orders of the trial
court.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the private respondents validly amended
the complaint
HELD: The SC held that where some but not all the
defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their
Complaint once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims
asserted solely against the non-answering defendants,
but not as to claims asserted against the other
defendants.
The rationale for the aforementioned rule is in
Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which provides
that after responsive pleading has been filed, an
amendment may be rejected when the defense is
substantially altered. Such amendment does not only
prejudice the rights of the defendant; it also delays the
action. In the first place, where a party has not yet filed
a responsive pleadings, there are no defenses that can
be altered. Furthermore, the Court has held that
[a]mendments to pleadings are generally favored and
should be liberally allowed in furtherance of justice in
order that every case may so far as possible be
determined on its real facts and in order to speed the
unnecessary expense, unless there are circumstances
such as inexcusable delay or the taking of the adverse
party by surprise or the like, which might justify a refusal
of permission to amend.
130. CAMPOS VS BAUTISTA
Respondent Muyot was employed by petitioner
at its gasoline station. On November 26, 1958 he filed a
complaint against petitioner with the Court of Industrial
Relations to recover compensation for alleged overtime,
Sunday and holiday services rendered during said
period.
On March 17, 1959, petitioner filed a
supplementary motion to dismiss alleging that the Court
had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter because the
complaint did not seek the reinstatement of Muyot who,
according to the complaint, ceased to be an employee of
petitioner since December 31, 1953. In other words, the
claim merely involved collection of pay for overtime,
Sunday and holiday work.
More than two years after the filing of his action
a motion for leave to amend his complaint and to
admit the amended complaint attached to his motion,
the amendment consisting precisely in the addition of a
third cause of action where inter alia, he alleged that he
was illegally dismissed by herein petitioner and that, as
a consequence he was entitled to reinstatement, with
back wages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of amended
complaint was proper
HELD: Obviously the purpose of the
amendment was to make his case fall within the
jurisdiction of the respondent court. This attempt is in
our opinion, of no avail.
It is settled in this jurisdiction that the
jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations
made in the complaint or petition.
The insufficiency of the allegations of Muyot's
complaint to place his action within the jurisdiction of
the respondent court could not be cured by amendment,
for in Rosario vs. Carandang, we clearly held that "a
complaint cannot be amended so as to confer
jurisdiction on the court in which it is filed, if the cause of
action originally set forth was not within the court's
jurisdiction."