THIRD
DIVISION
RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES,
INC.
[RCPI],
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 121397
April 17, 1997
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS, DAITY SALVOSA and RAY
DEAN
SALVOSA,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
FRANCISCO, J.:
Assailed in
this petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 31, 1995 and
its resolution of July 26, 1995 in CA-G. R. SP No. 33962, upholding
private
respondents' right to file an amended complaint for damages against
herein
petitioner. As a result of its failure to transmit private
respondent
Daity E. Salvosa's telegram on time, petitioner, Radio Communications
of
the Philippines. Inc. [RCPI], was sued by private respondents Spouses
Salvosa
for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. RCPI moved
for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of failure to state a
cause of action, alleging that in the absence of any allegation of
fraud
or bad faith, petitioner cannot be held liable for moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees.[1]
In its order
dated August 5, 1992, the trial court
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.[2]
Before receipt of their copy of the order of dismissal, private
respondents
filed an amended complaint, this time alleging bad faith on
petitioner's
part.[3]
Upon receipt of the order of dismissal on August 24, 1992, private
respondents
then filed a motion for reconsideration on September 4, 1992.[4]
Petitioner opposed the motion for reconsideration on the ground that
the
same was filed out of time and argued that amendment of the complaint
is
improper because the purpose is to introduce a subsequently accrued
action.[5]
On January 13,
1993, the trial court issued an
order granting private respondents' motion for reconsideration and set
aside its previous order of dismissal. The trial court ruled that
notwithstanding
the previous order of dismissal, private respondents are still entitled
as a matter of right to amend their complaint since the order has not
become
final and there was yet no responsive pleading served upon them.[6] Petitioner in turn moved
for reconsideration but the trial court denied the same in its order
dated
March 18, 1994.[7]
Thereafter,
petitioner proceeded to the Court
of Appeals through a petition for certiorari imputing grave abuse of
discretion
on the trial court for setting aside its initial order dismissing
private
respondents' complaint and in admitting their amended complaint.
Petitioner
maintained that private respondents cannot amend their complaint by
changing
the theory of the case from one of negligence to a case of bad faith so
as to confer jurisdiction to the trial court.[8]
On May 31, 1995,
the Court of Appeals rendered
the assailed decision dismissing petitioner's petition and upheld
private
respondents' right to file an amended complaint under Section 2 of Rule
10 of the Rules of Court. It also declared that the allegation of bad
faith
in the amended complaint did not in any way change private respondents'
theory of the case or their cause of action, that is, for breach of
contract.[9]
Petitioner sought reconsideration but respondent court denied the same
in its resolution dated August 18, 1995.[10]
Hence this petition.cralaw:red
Petitioner's
objection to the admission of private
respondents' amended complaint is anchored on the pronouncement laid
out
in the case off Torres vs. Tomacruz,[11]
which imposed a limitation on the procedural right to amend a
complaint,
that is, the cause of action or defense shall not be substantially
changed,
or that the theory of the case shall not be altered.cralaw:red
On the other
hand, private respondents denied
that they changed their theory in their amended complaint which has
consistently
been an action for breach of contract. Nevertheless, even assuming that
there was any switch in their theory of the case, private respondents
argued
that the same is allowed under Section 2 of Rule 10 of the Rules of
Court
because no responsive pleading has yet been filed by petitioner.cralaw:red
There is no merit
in the petition. Section 2,
Rule 10 of the Rules of Court is very explicit as to when amendments
are
allowed as a matter of right, to wit:
Sec. 2. When amendments allowed
as a
matter of right.- A party, may amend his pleading once as a
matter
of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the
pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the
action
has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend it at any
time within ten (10) days after it is served.
Undoubtedly, no
responsive pleading has been filed
prior to the submission by private respondents of an amended complaint.
The motion to dismiss previously filed by petitioner is definitely not
a responsive pleading.[12]
hence the admission of the amended complaint was properly made. Before
the filing of any responsive pleading, a party has the absolute right
to
amend his pleading whether a new cause of action or change in theory is
introduced.[13]
Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the limitation imposed in the
Torres
case [supra] does not apply herein because of the difference in the
factual
circumstances. In the aforecited case, the amended complaint which
introduced
a new cause of action was discarded because it was filed after an
answer
has already been adduced. However, in the instant case, the amended
complaint
was filed prior to the submission of any responsive pleading.
Furthermore,
anent petitioner's apprehension that
a party's right to amend a pleading will be subject to abuse if the
same
can be done without leave of court in cases like this one, the same is
clearly baseless in view of the limitation imposed in Sec. 2 of Rule 10
which allows the amendment "only once as a matter of course."
WHEREFORE, for
lack of merit, the petition is
hereby denied.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 21; Annex B.
[2]
Rollo, p. 32; Annex D.
[3]
Rollo, p. 33; Annex E.
[4]
Rollo, p. 39; Annex F.
[5]
Rollo, p. 42; Annex G.
[6]
Rollo, p. 51; Annex I.
[7]
Rollo, p. 62; Annex L.
[8]
Rollo, p. 69.
[9]
Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 90.
[10]
Rollo, p. 98.
[11]
49 Phil. 913 [1927].
[12]
Prudence Realty and Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA
379
[1994]; Soledad vs. Memangun, 8 SCRA 110.
[13]
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1979 Ed., p. 362. |