Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > May 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17153 May 18, 1962 - UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17153. May 18, 1962.]

UNITED STATES RUBBER CO., doing business under the trade name of UNITED STATES RUBBER INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIANO MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

Ramon M. de Claro for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Fortunato Jose, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; COMPLAINTS; AMENDMENT AND PRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEORY IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. — Plaintiff’s evidence being nothing more than the manner of computation adopted by it in order to arrive at the unpaid balance due to it from defendant, it did not change his theory in the first amended complaint, not is it outside the material allegations thereof.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL TO SUBSERVE ENDS OF JUSTICE. — The court may properly allow the second amendment of a complaint after trial in order to make its allegations conform to plaintiff’s evidence, so that the ends of justice may be subserved and plaintiff may be able to prove and recover its just claim against defendant.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


This action started with a complaint filed by the appellee United States Rubber Company against the appellant Mariano Medina in the Municipal Court of Manila (C.C. No. 71152) for the payment of the sum of P500, exclusive of interests and attorney’s fees, as representing the balance of defendant’s unpaid account with plaintiff on the price of tires and inner tubes ordered under Invoice No. 39371 on or about November 2, 1954. Defendant denied the alleged indebtedness, claimed that he had even made an overpayment of P1,869.24, and counterclaimed for the recovery of said overpayment and damages. After trial, the inferior court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and dismissed defendant’s counterclaim.

Defendant Medina appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila (C.C. No. 42228). There, after a pre-trial conference, plaintiff moved to amend its complaint so as to insert the clause "under an open account with the plaintiff" in paragraph 2 thereof, making said paragraph read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. On or about November 2, 1954, the defendant, under an open account with the plaintiff, purchased and received from the plaintiff tires and inner tubes, all valued at P3,054.84, under Invoice No. 39371, a copy of which was furnished the defendant, subject to the conditions that said purchase would be paid within 30 days from date of purchase; that interest of 12% per annum will be charged on all overdue accounts; that the defendant expressly submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the City of Manila in any legal action arising out of the transaction which is the subject matter of the complaint in this case; and that in case of suit over the said account, the defendant agrees to pay an additional sum equivalent to 25% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees." (R. A. p. 13)

The defendant did not interpose any objection to the admission of the above amended complaint, but left its admission to the sound discretion of the trial court. The amended complaint was, accordingly, admitted.

During the hearing, defendant objected to the introduction by plaintiff of any evidence showing that he had an outstanding unpaid balance on his open account prior to and before November 2, 1954, the date of Invoice No. 39371 mentioned in the complaint, on the ground that no allegations with respect thereto were made in the first amended complaint, but all his objections along this line were overruled by the trial court, so that plaintiff was able to present evidence showing, among other things, that at the time defendant purchased from plaintiff tires and inner tubes in the amount of P3,054.84 under his open account on November 2, 1954 per Invoice No. 39371, he had an unpaid balance in his account of P2,569.24, so that Invoice No. 39371 brought said balance to P5,624.08; that thereafter, defendant made several payments on account, leaving thereon an unpaid balance of P550; that on June 8, 1959, plaintiff turned over this balance to its attorneys for collection; that after said attorneys had made several demands upon defendant for payment, defendant made a payment of P50 on account on September 17, 1959, bringing down his unpaid balance of account to P500; and that this is the indebtedness that is sought to be recovered in this action.

After the close of the trial, plaintiff moved for the admission of a second amended complaint so as to include therein issues that, although not raised before, were tried with the implied consent of the parties, and to make said pleading conform to the evidence. Defendant opposed the motion, calling attention to the objections made by him at the trial to the presentation by plaintiff of any evidence to show the outstanding balance of his open account prior to and outside of Invoice No. 39371 dated November 2, 1954. Nevertheless, the trial court admitted the second amended complaint, and thereafter, on April 23, 1960, rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff "the sum of P500.00, with interest at the stipulated rate of 12% per annum from December 2, 1954, until fully paid, plus 25% of said amount of P500.00 attorney’s fees, and costs of suit in both instances." From this judgment, defendant filed notice to appeal to this Court on questions of law.

Appellant Medina now claims that the lower court erred (1) in allowing plaintiff-appellee to change its theory of the case to his prejudice; (2) in permitting plaintiff-appellee to introduce evidence to prove facts not alleged in its first amended complaint, and in subsequently allowing it to file a second amended complaint after trial to make the allegations thereof conform to the evidence presented by it at the hearing, over his (appellant’s) objections; and (3) in rendering judgment for Plaintiff-Appellee.

We find no merit in the above contentions.

Actually, whether or not the second amended complaint was filed and admitted, the matter of the outstanding unpaid balance on defendant-appellant’s open account with plaintiff-appellee before he made the purchase represented by Invoice No. 39371 on November 2, 1954 under the same open account, was well within the material allegations and theory of the first amended complaint.

The first amended complaint alleges:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2. On or about November 2, 1954, the defendant, under an open account with the plaintiff, purchased and received from the plaintiff tires and inner tubes, all valued at P3,054.84, under Invoices No. 39371, a copy of which was furnished the defendant, subject to the conditions that said purchase would be paid within 30 days from the date of purchase; that interest of 12% per annum will be charged on all overdue accounts; that the defendant expressly submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the City of Manila in any legal action arising out of the transaction which is the subject matter of the complaint in this case, and that in case of suit over the said account, the defendant agrees to pay an additional sum equivalent to 25% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees.

3. On account of the said purchase in the amount of P3,054.84, the defendant has paid the sum of P2,554.84, leaving a balance of P500.00 which is now long overdue, and which the defendant failed and still fails to pay notwithstanding repeated demands for payment made by the plaintiff upon him and further notwithstanding defendant’s repeated promises to pay.

4. That (sic) is now due the plaintiff from the defendant that sum of 500.00 with interest thereon at 12% per annum from December 2, 1954, until paid, plus 25% of the amount due as attorney’s fees." (Rec. on Appeal, pp. 13-14)

The gist of the above allegations is that on November 2, 1954, defendant placed an order for tires and inner tubes (Invoice No. 39371) under his open account with the plaintiff-appellee in the total amount of P3,054.84; that out of the said amount of P3,054.84 due under Invoice No. 39371, defendant had paid plaintiff the sum of P2,554.84, leaving an unpaid balance thereon of P500; and that said sum of P500 is now due the plaintiff, plus interests and attorney’s fees.

The subject-matter of the first amended complaint is not therefore, the original amount of Invoice No. 39371, as erroneously contended by defendant-appellant, but the total balance of said invoice in the amount of P500, exclusive of interests and attorney’s fees. And in order to prove this existing unpaid balance, plaintiff was free to show by evidence that before the date of said Invoice No. 39371, defendant had already an existing outstanding unpaid balance under his open account, so that the payments he made to plaintiff after November 2, 1954, the date of Invoice No. 39371, although they exceeded the amount of said invoice, were applied first to defendant’s unpaid balance existing prior to November 2, 1954, with the result that there still remained an unpaid existing balance on defendant’s Invoice No. 39371 in the amount of P500 at the time suit was filed. Such evidence is, as plaintiff-appellee correctly points out, nothing more than the manner of computation adopted by it in order to arrive at the unpaid balance of P500 still due to it from defendant under Invoice No. 39371. This evidence did not, therefore, change the theory of plaintiff’s first amended complaint, nor is it outside the material allegations thereof.

But even if the evidence adverted to did change the theory of plaintiff’s first amended complaint or was not within the issues thereof, still we do not believe the lower court abused its discretion in allowing the further amendment of the complaint after the termination of the trial in order to make its allegations conform to plaintiff’s evidence, in view of the provisions of section 4 of Rules of Court, that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since there is no question that defendant-appellant still owes the plaintiff the unpaid balance of P500 under his open account with said company, and his only defense against the complaint is the technical claim that plaintiff can not prove that he had any outstanding indebtedness on his open account prior to Invoice No. 39371 of November 2, 1954, because said indebtedness was not mentioned in the first amended complaint, the lower court properly allowed the second amendment of the complaint after trial in order that the ends of justice may be subserved and plaintiff may be able to prove and recover its just claim against defendant.

WHEREFORE the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs against defendant-appellant Mariano Medina.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962 - CARLOS CUNANAN v. JORGE TAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-15580 May 10, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-19593 May 10, 1962 - DELFIN B. ALBANO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14975 May 15, 1962 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962 - LA CAMPANA STARCH FACTORY, ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12658 May 18, 1962 - FORTUNATO PICHAY, ET AL. v. MICHAEL S. KAIRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14573 May 18, 1962 - CONCEPCION FELICIANO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 May 18, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17041-17042 May 18, 1962 - TOMAS LITIMCO v. LA MALLORCA

  • G.R. No. L-17153 May 18, 1962 - UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-17524 May 18, 1962 - FELICIANO VERGARA v. CIRIACO VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-18883 May 18, 1962 - PEDRO ESTELLA v. PEDRO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-10457 May 22, 1962 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA, ET AL. v. PEDRO P. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16472 May 23, 1962 - JUANA VDA DE MARTEL, ET AL. v. JULIANA F. ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16628 May 23, 1962 - VIVENCIO LASALA, ET AL. v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17593 May 24, 1962 - INES SAPONG CASEÑAS, ET AL. v. RICARDO JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-18420 May 24, 1962 - DALMACIO PREPOTENTE v. JOSE SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17788 May 25, 1962 - LUIS RECATO DY, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17905 May 25, 1962 - IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15345 May 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15915 May 26, 1962 - MARCELINO T. MACARAEG, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18069 May 26, 1962 - ALFONSO DY CUECO v. SEC. OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16732 May 29, 1962 - RAMON AUGUSTO, ET AL. v. ARCADIO ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17622 May 29, 1962 - IN RE: FERNANDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12613 May 30, 1962 - FARM IMPLEMENT MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13250 May 30, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13555 May 30, 1962 - SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14010 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS M. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14207 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-15680 May 30, 1962 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16027 May 30, 1962 - LUMEN POLICARPIO v. MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16383 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE LUMANTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16407 May 30, 1962 - ARCADIO G. MATELA v. CHUA TAY

  • G.R. No. L-16828 May 30, 1962 - SI NE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16850 May 30, 1962 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16955 May 30, 1962 - SALVADOR PANLILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17013 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: YAN HANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17025 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: SY SEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17338 May 30, 1962 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. CITY ATTORNEY OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17394 May 30, 1962 - AMADOR D. SANTOS v. DOLORES BANZON TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 - CECILIO PE, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PE

  • G.R. No. L-17458 May 30, 1962 - DANILO DAVID v. ALASKA LUMBER COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17502 May 30, 1962 - A. V. H. & COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17588 May 30, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. MAXIMA BLOUSE DE POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17591 May 30, 1962 - CLEOTILDE LAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17616 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABUY

  • G.R. No. L-17656 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO TAYLOR v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17663 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAURO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. Nos. L-17684-85 May 30, 1962 - VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17757 May 30, 1962 - MAMERTA DE LA MERCED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17896 May 30, 1962 - VALENTIN A. FERNANDO v. ANGAT LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17920 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-17932 May 30, 1962 - JOSE D. DE LA CRUZ v. SULPICIO DOLLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962 - RICARDO CARLOS v. MARIA DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-17977 May 30, 1962 - JEREMIAS MONTEJO v. DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18023 May 30, 1962 - ANGEL OTIBAR, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO G. VINSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18026 May 30, 1962 - SAN FELIPE IRON MINES, INC. v. JOSE A. NALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18165 May 30, 1962 - PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18530 May 30, 1962 - JOSE ALCANTARA v. DIONISIA YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18535 May 30, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ COMPANY, INC. v. L. S. SARMIENTO, CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18871 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO SOTTO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11357 May 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. OLLADA, ETC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-11621 May 31, 1962 - ANTONIA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MARASIGAN

  • G.R. No. L-11848 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12719 May 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CLUB FILIPINO, INC., DE CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-14180 May 31, 1962 - LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16045 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: CHUA CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16185-86 May 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17437 May 31, 1962 - MENO PE BENITO v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-17520 May 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO BALANCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17603-04 May 31, 1962 - CEFERINA SAMO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17835 May 31, 1962 - GONZALO SANTOS RIVERA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17852 May 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17955 May 31, 1962 - PILAR LAZARO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL. v. SALUD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL.