Rule 10

AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Part I. AMENDMENTS

Sec. 1. Amendments in general. - Pleadings may be amended by

adding or striking out an allegation or the name of any party, or
by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or
inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that
the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined,
without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner. (1)

What do you understand by amendment? The general meaning of amendment is change. Now can we amend
pleadings, change it? Yes.

Q: How do you amend a pleading?

A: Well, any type of change – you can add a word or a sentence or you strike out an allegation or you add or
strike out a party; you correct a mistake in the name of a party or inadequate allegation or description in any other
respect. As a matter of fact, if you correct only one letter, that is already an amendment.

So you can amend by removing something, adding something, or changing something by substituting
another word. You can amend by removing an entire paragraph, an entire sentence, a phrase, or a word. So that
is what amendment is all about. As a matter of fact, before reaching Rule 10, there are provisions where
amendments have already been touched upon, one of which is Rule 1, Section 5:

Sec. 5. Commencement of action.- A civil action is commenced by

the filing of the original complaint in court. If an additional
defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such
later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its
admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.

So in other words, if I file a complaint against A, then later on I will include another defendant, the inclusion
of an additional defendant party is an amendment.

Q: Suppose I will file a case against Jacques today, January 9, then one month from today I will file another
complaint to include an additional defendant, Tikla. When is the case deemed commenced?
A: According to Rule 1, Section 5, as far as Jacques is concerned, the original defendant, the case against him
is commenced today. But as far as Tikla is concerned, the additional defendant, the case is commenced not upon
the filing of the original complaint, but on the date when he is included in the amended complaint. So, the
amendment does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original action.

Q: What is the policy of the law on amendments? Should it be encouraged or discouraged? If a party wants
to amend his complaint or answer, should the court be liberal in allowing the amendment or should it restrict, as a
general rule, and not allow the amendment?
A: Section 1 says that the purpose of amendment is that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be
determined without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. According to
the SC, amendments to pleadings are favored and should be liberally allowed in order (a) to determine every case
as far as possible on its actual merits without regard to technicalities, (b) to speed up the trial of cases, and (c) to
prevent unnecessary expenses. (Verzosa vs. Verzosa, L-25603, Nov. 27, 1968; Cese vs. GSIS, L-135814, Aug.
31, 1960)

EXAMPLE: The plaintiff files his complaint or the defendant files his answer and then later on he realizes
that his cause of action is wrong or that his defense is wrong. He would like to change his complaint or change
his answer. All he has to do is amend his complaint or answer. The court cannot stop him from changing his
complaint or changing his answer because the purpose of litigation is: the real nature of controversy will be
litigated in court. You cannot normally stop the party from ventilating his real cause of action or his real defense
so that the rule is that amendments should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice and that the real merits
of the case will come out in court. That is what you have to remember about concept of amendments and the
policy of the rules on amendments.

TYPES OF AMENDMENTS:

The following are the important points to remember here:

FIRST, there are two types of amendment of pleadings under the rules:
An amendment as a matter of right; or
An amendment as a matter of judicial discretion

SECOND, an amendment could be

a formal amendment; or
a substantial amendment

These are the same classification under the Rules on Criminal Procedure under Rule 110.

Amendment as a MATTER OF RIGHT; and

Amendment as a MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT simply means that the party has the unconditional action or
right to amend his pleading. The court has no right to prevent him from amending. The opposite party has no
right to oppose the amendment.

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION simply means that the court may or may
not allow the amendment. So the other party has the right to oppose.

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

Q: When is amendment a matter of right?

A: Section 2:

Sec. 2. Amendments as a matter of right. - A party may amend

his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a
responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any
time within ten (10) days after it is served. (2a)

PROBLEM: I am the plaintiff, I file a complaint. I want to amend my complaint. When is the amendment a
matter of right?
A: At any time a responsive pleading is served to the complaint. Meaning, at any time before the defendant
has filed his answer, the plaintiff may change his complaint at any time. He may change it in any manner,
substantially or formally.

Q: How about the defendant? Suppose he wants to change his answer, when is his right absolute or as a
matter of fact right?
A: At any time before a reply by the plaintiff is filed or before the expiration of the period to file a reply
because a reply may or may be not be filed.

Q: How about if you want to amend your reply? You cannot say before a responsive pleading is served
because there is no more responsive pleading to the reply.
 A: So under Section 2, the plaintiff can amend his reply at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.

Q: Is there any other instance when amendment is a matter of right even if there is already an answer or even
in the middle of the trial the party can still change his pleading and it seems that the court should allow it?
A: Yes, there is a second instance, when the amendment is FORMAL IN NATURE as found in Section 4:

Sec. 4. Formal amendments. - 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 no prejudice is caused
thereby to the adverse party. (4a)

When the amendment is fairly formal, it can be done anytime. As a matter of fact it can be summarily
corrected by the court at any stage of the action, upon motion or even without motion, the court will order the
amendment. Because anyway that is a harmless correction.

NOTE: Change of amount of damages is only formal because there is no change in the cause of action.

SUMMARY: Amendment as a matter of right:

Before an answer is filed (Complaint);
Before a reply is filed or before the period for filing a reply expires (Answer);
Any time within 10 days after it is served (Reply); and
Formal amendment

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION

So we will now go to substantial amendments which are a matter of judicial discretion, that is Section 3:

Sec. 3. Amendments by leave of court. - 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. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this
section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice
to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard. (3a)

Q: When is an amendment a matter of judicial discretion?

A: The amendment must be substantial and the adverse party has already filed and served a copy of his
responsive pleading.

PROBLEM: I will file my complaint against you and you will file your answer. After you have filed your
answer, I want to amend my complaint and my amendments is not merely formal but something substantial, like
my cause of action will not be the same anymore.
Q: Can it still be done?
A: YES, BUT this time it is a matter of judicial discretion. It must be with leave of court. So I will have to
file a motion in court to allow or admit the proposed amended complaint. I will furnish a copy of the motion to
my opponent together with a copy of the amended complaint and the other party has the right to oppose the
amendment. So the court will hear and decide whether to allow the amendment or not.

Q: Assuming that the amendment is a matter of judicial discretion, how should the court resolve it?
Assuming that the argument is 50-50 and the court is deliberating whether or not to allow the amendment.
A: Based on established jurisprudence, the court should always allow the amendment because of the liberal
policy of the rules. Amendments of pleadings should be liberally allowed in order that the real merits of the case
can be ventilated in court without regard to technicalities. So the court will always lean on allowing a pleading to
be amended. That is the liberal policy.
 LIMITATIONS TO THE LIBERAL POLICY IN AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS

Q: What are the limitations to this liberal policy in allowing amendments? Meaning, when can the court refuse
to allow the amendment and when can you validly oppose it?
A: The following:
when the amendment is to delay the action (Section 3);
when the amendment is for the purpose of making the complaint confer jurisdiction upon the court
(Rosario vs. Carangdang, 96 Phil. 845);
when the amendment is for the purpose of curing a premature or non-existing cause of action
(Limpangco vs. Mercado, 10 Phil. 508; Wong vs. Yatco, 99 Phil. 791)

1.) WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS TO DELAY THE ACTION

The second sentence of Section 3 says that such leave may be refused if it appears that the motion was made
with intent to delay. Meaning, the motion to amend is dilatory. Example: a case is filed against the defendant
based on a cause of action then trial…trial…then the case is already about to end. Then the plaintiff says he
wants to amend his complaint and change his cause of action. I don’t think the court will allow it. That’s too
much.

Or, the defendant will say that he would like to change his defense. I don’t think the court will agree with
that situation because it appears that the motion to amend is already dilatory. Why did it take you one year to
realize that your cause of action or your defense is wrong? So that is a limitation where the court may refuse to
apply the principles on liberality. The liberal policy becomes weaker or is working against you the longer you
delay your amendment because it might already be interpreted to be dilatory.

Now if you will notice, there is another limitation found in the old rules that is gone here, and that is : That
the amendment will not be allowed if it will SUBSTANTIALLY alter the cause of action or defense (Torres vs.
Tomacruz, 49 Phil. 913) The implication here is that, since amendment is favored, even if you alter you cause of
action or defense, you should not prevent the other party provided that it is not dilatory. And the definition of this
limitation is a confirmation of what the SC said in some cases like the case of
MARINI-GONZALES vs. LOOD
148 SCRA 452

HELD: “While the Rules of Court authorize the courts to disallow amendment of pleadings when
it appears that the same is made to delay an action or that the cause of action or defense is substantially
altered thereby, the rule is not absolute.” It is discretionary.
“Courts are not precluded from allowing amendments of pleadings even if the same will
substantially change the cause of action or defense provided that such amendments do not result in a
substantial injury to the adverse party. This is due to the permissive character of said rule [which
provides: “may refuse”]. In fact, this Court has ruled that amendments to pleadings are favored and
should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice.”

That is why these are enough reason to delete that limitation. But if you are going to change your cause of
action or defense when the trial is almost over, hindi na puwede because that will be dilatory. But if you want to
change it before the trial, that it still allowed, even if it is substantial in nature. That’s why this limitation
disappeared. But despite the fact that there is only one limitation now left, it is conceded that there are still
limitations not found in the law which have remained intact.

2.) WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE COMPLAINT CONFER
JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT

In other words, based on the original complaint the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. So I will
amend the complaint so that the court will have jurisdiction. Well, that will not be allowed. So, jurisdiction by the
court cannot be conferred by amendment when the original complaint shows that the court has no jurisdiction.

For EXAMPLE: I will file a complaint for an unpaid loan and the amount is exactly P200,000 only. Where
should I file the complaint? MTC. But by mistake I file it in the RTC and later I realized that the case should
have been filed in the MTC because the jurisdiction of the RTC should be above P200,000. So I will amend my
complaint and change the complaint and say that my claim is P100,001.00. The obvious purpose of the
amendment is to make the case fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC. According to the SC, it cannot be done.

The rule here is when in its face, the complaint shows that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the court has no authority to act in the case. And if you move to amend it and ask the court to allow the
amendment, you are assuming that the court has the authority to act on the case. But the court can’t allow it
because the court has no authority to act. So the court even is not authorized to allow the amendment because it
has no authority to act in the first place. How can you allow something when you do not have the authority to
act? My golly!

So according to the SC, when its on very face the complaint shows that the court has no jurisdiction, the court
has only one authority and its only authority is to dismiss the case. So with that an amendment cannot confer
jurisdiction.

3.) WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CURING A PREMATURE OR NON-
EXISTING CAUSE OF ACTION

Meaning, on its very face, there is no cause of action, there is no case. There is no delict or there is no wrong.
Now how can you create a delict or wrong by amending your complaint? In effect, you are creating something
out of nothing.

BAR QUESTION: How do you distinguish a NON-EXISTENT cause of action from IMPERFECT cause
of action?
A: The following are the distinctions:

In a NON-EXISTENT cause of action, there is yet no delict or wrong committed by the defendant
(Limpangco vs. Mercado, 10 Phil. 508) whereas
In an IMPERFECT cause of action, a delict or wrong has already been committed and alleged in the
complaint, but he cause of action is incomplete (Alto Surety vs. Aguilar, L-5625, March 16,
1945); and

a NON-EXISTENT cause of action is not curable by amendment (Limpangco vs. Mercado, 10 Phil. 508;
Surigao Mine vs. Harris, 68 Phil. 113) whereas
an IMPERFECT cause of action is curable by amendment (Alto Surety vs. Aguilar, L-5625, March
16, 1945; Ramos vs. Gibbon, 67 Phil. 371).

BAR QUESTION: Suppose the filing of the complaint will lapse on January 20 and I will file the complaint
today so the running of the period will be interrupted. Suppose I will amend my complaint next month, on
February. Question: Is prescription properly interrupted? When an original complaint is amended later, when is
the prescriptive period for filing the action interrupted? Upon the filing of the original complaint or upon the
filing of the amended complaint?
A: It DEPENDS upon the nature of the amendment:
If the amendment introduces a new and different cause of action, then the prescriptive period is
deemed interrupted upon the filing of the amended complaint; (Ruymann vs. Dir. of Lands, 34 Phil.
428)

But where the amendment has not altered or changed the original cause of action, no different cause of
action is introduced in the amended complaint, then the interruption of the prescriptive period retroacts
on the date of the filing of the original complaint. (Pangasinan Trans. CO. vs. Phil. Farming Co., 81
 Phil. 273; Maniago vs. Mallari, 52 O.G. 180, October 31, 1956)

EXAMPLE: I will file today a case for damages arising for quasi-delict. And then one or two months from
now I will amend my complaint from damages arising from culpa aquiliana to damages arising from culpa
contractual. Is that a different cause of action? Yes, so the prescriptive period for culpa contractual is deemed
filed next month, not this month, because that is a different cause of action.

EXAMPLE: But suppose I file a case against you for culpa aquiliana, and my claim is one million. Next
month I amend my complaint for damages from one million pesos to two million pesos. Did I change my cause
of action? No, it is still the same cause of action—culpa aquiliana. Therefore, the prescriptive period is deemed
interrupted as of the date of the filing of the original complaint.

AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

Now, the classifications of amendments under the rule on criminal procedure are the same because there is
such a thing as amendments on the criminal complaints or informations as a matter of right on the part of the
prosecution and amendments as a matter of judicial discretion. And under the rules of criminal procedure, an
amendment can either be formal or substantially received. There is some difference in the rules.

How do you differentiate the amendment of a pleading, under the rules on civil procedure and the amendment
of a criminal complaint or information in criminal cases? Take note that there is no Answer in criminal cases. The
accused is not obliged to file answer but the counterpart of answer in criminal cases is the plea, where he pleads
either guilty or not guilty.

Under the rules on criminal procedure, at anytime before the arraignment or before he enters plea, the
amendment of information is a matter of right, either in form or in substance. EXAMPLE: The prosecution files
an information against you for homicide and then the prosecution wants to agree to murder. Can it be done?
YES, for as long as the accused has not yet entered his plea.

So it is almost the same as in civil cases. For as long as there is no responsive, pleading the amendment is a
matter of right whether in substance or in form.

Q: Now in criminal cases, AFTER the accused had already entered his plea to the original charged, is
amendment still allowed? Can the prosecution still amend?
A: YES. But what is allowed is only formal amendment. Substantial amendment is 100% prohibited in
criminal cases. But in civil cases, puwede.

OBJECTIONS AND DEFENSES NOT RAISED ARE DEEMED WAIVED; EXCEPTION

Sec. 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of

evidence. - When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with
the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be
treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the
pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to
cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues
may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after
judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the
trial of these issues. 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 subserved thereby.
The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be
made. (5a)
 Q: May issues not raised in the pleadings be tried in court during the trial?
A: As a GENERAL RULE, a defendant during the trial is not allowed to prove a defense that is not raised in
the pleadings based on Rule 9, Section 1. The court has no jurisdiction over the issue. That’s why there is no
such thing as surprise defense because a defense that is not raised is deemed waived.

Q: Is there an EXCEPTION to Rule 9, Section 1? Can the rule be relaxed?

A: YES. Section 5 is a relaxation of the rule specifically the first sentence: “when issues not raised in the
pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the pleadings.”

EXAMPLE: In a collection case, the defendant in his answer raised a defense that the money obtained from
the defendants was not a loan but a donation. During the trial, he attempted to prove that it was a loan but it was
already fully paid. So he is now proving the defense of payment. He is practically changing his defense. If you
follow Rule 9, Section 1, that is not allowed.
But suppose the parties during the trial, the plaintiff agrees that the defendant will prove that the obligation is
paid, then it can be done because issues now raised in the pleadings are tried with the express consent of the
parties. They shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.

In the case of implied consent, the best example is when the defendant attempts to prove payment and the
plaintiff FAILED TO OBJECT. So there is now an implied consent by the parties. Therefore, the case can now
be tried in the issue as if they had been raised in the pleadings. That is what we call the principle of estoppel.
The parties are in estoppel because they expressly or impliedly agreed to try an issue which is not raised in the
pleadings. The court will now render judgment and discuss the evidence and discuss whether the obligation has
been paid or not.

So if it happens, the decision will not jibe with the pleadings. If you read the complaint and the answer, there
is no mention of payment but in the decision resolved the case on that issue. The pleadings are not in harmony
with the decision.

Q: So how will you harmonize the two – pleadings and the decision?
A: The remedy according to Section 5 is to amend the pleadings. We can amend the pleadings to make them
conform with the evidence. That is why the law says: “such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to
cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any
time, even after judgment.”

So even after the judgment, you can amend the pleading in order to harmonize with the evidence. Normally,
the evidence should conform to the pleading under Rule 9. In this case, baliktad! – it is the pleading which is
being amended to conform to the evidence. It is the exact opposite.

Normally that is for the benefit of the appellate court in case the decision will be the case will be appealed.
The CA will read the complaint and the answer, “wala mang payment dito!” But when you read the decision, the
main issue was payment not found in the complaint and the answer. So there might be confusion. So amendment
is necessary at anytime, even after judgment.

Q: But suppose the parties never bothered to amend the pleadings, is there a valid judgment?
A: YES because the law says, “but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues.” So,
there is a valid trial and the court acquires jurisdiction over the issues because of their implied or express consent.
The best example is FAILURE TO OBJECT.

“if the evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it was 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 subserved thereby.”

EXAMPLE: The defendant during the trial attempted to prove the obligation that it is paid. The lawyer of the
plaintiff is alert and objected thereby, “You cannot prove that defense because you never raise a defense of
payment in your answer.” Is the objection correct? YES because of Rule 9, Section 1. The court affirmed the
plaintiff that one cannot prove the defense of payment because you never raised it in your answer. There is no
express or implied consent.

Q: But the defendant said, “If that is so your honor, may we be allowed to amend our answer so that we will
now raise the defense of payment and prove it in court?” Can the court allow the defendant to amend his answer
in the middle of the trial just to prove a defense that is not raised?
A: The rule says YES, 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 subserved thereby.

That is why you can say that the power of the court in enforcing the Rules of Court is very wide. For
example, I am the judge and the defendant never raised the issue of payment in his answer and he is now rising
such defense. The plaintiff’s lawyer will now object and alleged that he cannot prove such defense for he never
raised it in his answer. The judge sustained the objection, “You cannot prove a defense that is never raised in
your answer.” Q: Is my ruling correct? A: YES because of Rule 9, Section 1 – objections and defenses not
raised in the answer are deemed waived.

The defendant will now move to be allowed to amend the pleading so that I raised that defense. The plaintiff
will object to the amendment. The judge will ask the plaintiff, “is the obligation paid?” “NO. The defendant
never paid it,” answered the plaintiff. So if the defense is false, why are you afraid? Anyway, he cannot prove it.
So I will allow the amendment.

However, if the plaintiff will answer that the defendant has already paid the obligation but that he never raised
such matter in his answer. The plaintiff now will be in bad faith. So I will allow the amendment.

So in other words, in any way my ruling is correct because I know how to apply the rule. So the court will
allow the amendment and shall do so with liberality… so LIBERALITY should be the rule on amendment.
Section 5 is a rule more on equity. While, Rule 9, Section 1 is a rule of law. Section 5 is a relaxation of that law
on technicality.

The last sentence, “the court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.” ‘Continuance’
means postponement. It means, postponement of the case to allow the defendant to amend his answer first.

Part II. SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Sec. 6. Supplemental pleadings. - Upon motion of a party the

court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just,
permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth
transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party
may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order
admitting the supplemental pleading. (6a)

The second part of Rule 10 is the supplemental pleading, for the first part is the amended pleadings.

Q: How do you distinguish an AMENDED pleading from a SUPPLEMENTAL pleading?

A: Of course, the similarity between the two is the existence of ORIGINAL PLEADING. The following are
the distinctions:

FIRST DISTINCTION: As to the allegations

An AMENDED pleading contains transactions, occurrences or events which already happened at the time
the original pleading was filed and could have been raised at the original pleading, but which the pleader
failed to raise in the original pleading because, oversight or inadvertence or inexcusable negligence. If he
wants to raise it, he must amend the pleading. Whereas,
 A SUPPLEMENTAL pleading contains transactions, occurrences or events which were not in existence
at the time the original pleading was filed but which only happened after the filing of the original pleading and
therefore, could not have been raised in the original pleading.

That is the distinction emphasized in the New Rule – Rule 11, Sections 9 and 10:

Rule 11, Section 9. Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after

answer. – A counterclaim or cross-claim which either matured or
was acquired by a party after serving his pleading may, with
the permission of the court, be presented as a counterclaim or
cross-claim by supplemental pleading before Judgment.

Rule 11, Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. –

When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim
through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when
justice requires, he may, by leave of court, set up the
counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.

These provisions emphasize the difference between an amended pleading and a supplemental pleading
– how do you raise a counterclaim or cross-claim which was not raised earlier? Is it by amending the
pleading or by filing d supplemental pleading ? And that applies also to an answer where the defense or
the transaction or the cause of action supervened later.

SECOND DISTINCTION: As to effect

In an AMENDED pleading, the amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. The original pleading
is deemed erased. The amended substitutes the original. So from the viewpoint of the law, the original
pleading no longer exists. Whereas,
When a SUPPLEMENTAL pleading is filed, it does not supersede the original pleading. In effect, there
are now two (2) pleadings which stand side by side in the case – the original and the supplemental pleadings.

EXAMPLE: Mortz borrowed from Nanding P200,000 payable in 2 yearly installments. Mortz
failed to pay the first installment. Nanding filed a case. While the case is pending, the other installment
became due. Nanding will now file a supplemental pleading and as a result, there will be two (2)
complaints for P100,000 each.

Rule in EVIDENCE: In an amended pleading, all your admissions and evidence no longer exist
because remember under the rules on Evidence, any admission that you make in your pleading binds you
under the doctrine of judicial admission where the evidence need not be given - as if it is taken judicial
notice of. The rule is, if a pleading is amended and the amended pleading does not contain the admissions
contained in the original pleading, the judicial admission is now converted into an extra-judicial admission
and therefore the court will no longer take judicial notice of that.
But if I want to bring it to the attention of the court an admission which is not found there (in the
amended pleading), I have to formally offer in evidence the original pleading. Normally, you do not offer
in evidence a pleading because the court takes judicial notice of everything stated in there. But if the
original pleading is now superseded, the original must be offered in evidence to prove an admission
found in the original but not anymore in the amended one. That principle in now found in Section 8:

Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. - An amended pleading

supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the
pleader; and claims and defenses alleged therein not
incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.

That is related to the rule in evidence that what need not be proved: judicial notice, judicial admissions.
 THIRD DISTINCTION: The filing of an AMENDED pleading could be a matter of right or of judicial
discretion under Sections 2 and 3; whereas
The filing of a SUPPLEMENTAL pleading is always a matter of judicial discretion under Section 6.
There is always leave of court.

Now, let us cite cases which are relevant to our topic on supplemental pleadings.

LEOBRERA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

170 SCRA 711

FACTS: Karen went to the bank and obtained a loan – housing loan. A promissory note was
issued payable next year. After few months, Karen went back to the bank and secured a second loan
– agricultural loan with another promissory note.
When the first note became due, Karen failed to pay. So the bank sued Karen on the first
promissory note. When the case was still going on, the second loan became due. So the bank sought
to file a supplemental complaint against Karen to collect the second loan. The maturity of the second
loan happened after the filing of the first pleading sought to be supplemented.

ISSUE: Is there a proper supplemental complaint?

HELD: NO. It is improper. Although the plaintiff and the defendant are the same, there are two
separate loans independent of each other as a matter of fact the stipulations are not identical. It cannot
be the subject matter of a supplemental complaint. In this case, there are many types of loans secured
in different terms and conditions.
“A supplemental complaint must based on matters arising subsequent to the original complaint
RELATED to the claim presented therein and founded on the same cause of action.” It cannot be used
to try of another matter or a new cause of action.

A good EXAMPLE for a supplemental complaint is when I borrow money from you for P600,000 payable
in three installments. First installment is on February for P200,000; second installment is on April; and the last
installment is on June for the last P200,000. There is no acceleration clause. When the first installment fell due, I
did not pay. So the plaintiff filed a case against me to collect the first installment. In April, the case is still not yet
decided. In fact the second installment again fell due. Plaintiff moved to file for the supplemental pleading.
While the two cases are still pending, the last installment fell due and again there is failure to pay, so there is
another supplemental complaint.
Q: Is that proper?
A: YES because these are not two separate loans but one loan and the installments are interrelated.

SUPERCLEAN SERVICES INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

258 SCRA 165 [1996]

FACTS: Superclean Service Corp. is a company engaged in janitorial services. A government

corporation, the Home Development and Mutual Fund (HDMF) sought a public bidding on who will
be the company who shall provide janitorial services to the offices of the HDMF for the year 1990.
Superclean won as it was the lowest bidder. It was suppose to start providing the service for the
year 1990. However, the HDMF refused to honor the award. So, on November 8, 1989, Superclean
filed in the RTC of Manila a complaint for mandamus and certiorari against HDMF alleging that at
public bidding for janitorial services for the year 1990, it won as the lowest bidder but HDMF
refused without just cause, to award the contract to 'hem,
The problem was that 1990 already ended and the case was still on-going. So it was already
rendered moot and academic. What Superclean did was to file a supplemental complaint in 1991
alleging that because the contract of service was the furnishing of janitorial services for the year 1990,
the delay in the decision of the case has rendered the case moot and academic without Superclean
obtaining complete relief to redress the wrong committed against it by HDMF which relied now
consists of unrealized profits, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
So, money claim na lang dahil moot and academic na eh. Instead of pursuing its prayer for
 mandamus, Superclean sought the payment of damages to it.

ISSUE: Is the filing of supplemental complaint proper in order to seek a different relief in view of
developments rendering the original complaint impossible of attainment?

HELD: “The transaction, occurrence or event happening since the filing of the pleading, which is
sought to be supplemented, must be pleaded in aid of a party's right of defense as the case may be.
[That’s the purpose of the supplemental pleading – in aid of the party’s cause of action or defense]
But in the case at bar, the supervening event is not invoked for that purpose but to justify the new
relief sought.”
“To begin with, what was alleged as a supervening event causing damage to Superclean was the
fact that the year for which the contract should have been made had passed without the resolution of
the case. The supervening event was cited not to reinforce or aid the original demand, which was for
the execution of a contract in petitioner's favor, but to say that, precisely because of it, petitioner's
demand could no longer be enforced, thus justifying petitioner in changing the relief sought to one for
recovery of damages. This being the case, petitioner's remedy was not to supplement, but rather to
amend its complaint.” You are actually changing the relief so that the correct remedy is not a
supplemental complaint but an amended complaint.
“Be that as it may, the so-called Supplemental Complaint filed by petitioner should simply be
treated as embodying amendments to the original complaint or petitioner may be required to file an
amended complaint.” So, meaning, you call it a supplemental complaint, the court will call it as an
amended complaint or the other alternative, require him to file an amended complaint.

Sec. 7. Filing of amended pleadings. - When any pleading is

amended, a new copy of the entire pleading, incorporating the
amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate marks, shall
be filed. (7a)

When a party files an amended pleading, the amendments should be indicated by appropriated marks,
normally, the amended portion is underlined.

EXAMPLE: A party would to insert an entirely new paragraph. That paragraph would be underlined. The
purpose for such marking is for the court and the opposing party to immediately see and detect the amendment. If
no appropriated mark is provided the court and the lawyer has to compare everything, paragraph by paragraph,
sentence by sentence, line by line. Now, if there are underlines, the court will just concentrate on the underlined
portion. This is for convenience for the parties and the court.

Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. - An amended pleading

supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the
pleader; and claims and defenses alleged therein not incorporated
in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.

(Section 8: See discussion on Section 6 on distinctions between an amended and supplemental pleading;
second distinction)

The first sentence is one of the distinctions between an amended pleading and a supplement pleading. From
procedural viewpoint, the original pleading is already non-existent. The court will no longer consider anything
stated there.

EXAMPLE: You say something favorable to me. However, in his amended pleading, he removes such
statement, so that the court will not consider it anymore. Such statement is out of the picture. Now, if you want to
bring to the attention of the court the statement found in the original pleading, you must offer the original pleading
in evidence to consider it all over again. This rule will be considered in the study of EVIDENCE.
 <

PAGE

PAGE 172
JBD