F5 Amended and Supplemental Pleadings (Rule 10) Flashcards
Instances when pleadings are amended.
- Adding or striking out an allegation or the name of any party; or
- Correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect. (Sec. 1, Rule 10, ROC, as amended
Amendments as a matter of Right (2005, 2008 BAR)
- Once, at any time before a responsive pleading is served; or
- In the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) calendar days after it is served. (Sec. 2,
Rule 10, ROC, as amended
NOTE: It is settled that a motion to dismiss is not the responsive pleading contemplated by the Rule. A plaintiff may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered dismissed, provided that the order of dismissal is not yet final. (Riano, 2019, citing Bautista v. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc., G.R. No. 148411, 29 Nov. 2005)
If the court refuses to admit an amended pleading when its exercise is a matter of right, such error is correctible by mandamus. (Alpine Lending Investors vs. Corpuz, G.R. No. 157107, 24 Nov. 2006)
AMENDMENTS BY LEAVE OF COURT- How Substantial Amendments are done
Substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court upon a motion filed in court, after notice to the adverse party, and after being given an opportunity to be heard. (Sec. 3, Rule 10, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Leave of court for substantial amendment is NOT required when it is made as a matter of right, i.e., when it is made before a responsive pleading had already been served. At this stage, a party has the absolute right to amend his or her pleading substantially as when he or she introduces a new cause of action or a change in theory
Instances of Amendments by Leave of Court (2003 BAR)
- If the amendment is substantial (Sec. 3, Rule 10, ROC, as amended); or
- A responsive pleading had already been served (Siasoco v. CA, G.R. No. 132753, 15 Feb. 1999)
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. (Sec. 4, Rule 10, ROC, as amended)
-defect in designation –typo & clerical errors
No Amendment necessary 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. No amendment of such pleadings deemed amended is necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence. (Sec. 5, Rule 10, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: It does not apply when the case was decided on a stipulation of facts in which case the pleadings are not deemed amended to conform to the evidence. (MWSS v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 54526, 25 Aug. 1986)
Effect of Amended Pleading
An amended pleading supersedes the pleading it amends.
*Admissions
However, admissions in the superseded pleading can still be offered in evidence against the pleader.
*Claims or defenses
Claims or defenses alleged therein but not incorporated or reiterated in the amended pleading are deemed waived. (Sec. 8, Rule 10, ROC, as amended)
Effect of Amended Pleading on the Admissions in the Original Pleading
They cease to be judicial admissions. Thus, they are to be considered as extrajudicial admissions and may be proved by the party relying thereon by formal offer in evidence of such original pleading. (Ching v. CA, G.R. No. 110844, 27 Apr. 2000)
Q: In 2013, the RTC granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Camcam’s complaint. The RTC ruled that there is no longer an issue demanding a full- blown trial as Camcam’s admitted facts and documentary evidence on record already confirmed Vazquez’s ownership. Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the CA where they argued that the disposition of the case was premature as they were still seeking an amendment of their complaint and that there were genuine issues in the case necessitating a full-blown trial. The CA, in CA-GR CV No. 103230 dated September 16, 2016, held that the RTC did not err in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment despite the pendency before the different division of a related case wherein petitioners put in issue the propriety of the amendment of the complaint.
In CA-GR SP No. 129738 dated August 28, 2014, the CA decision directed the RTC to Admit the Amended Complaint and to try the case with dispatch. Was the CA correct in granting the Motion for Summary Judgement in 2016?
A: NO. The Rules on Civil Procedure provide that the amended complaint supersedes the complaint. Thus, the grant of the Motion for Summary Judgment, and even the Motion for Summary Judgment itself, have no leg to stand on, as they were both based on the superseded complaint. (De Camcam and Bintanga v. Vazquez, G.R. No. 227258, 03 Feb. 2021)
NOTE: The settled rule is that the filing of an amended pleading does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original pleading; hence, the statute of limitation runs until the submission of the amendment. It is true that as an exception, this Court has held that an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which expired after the service of the original complaint. Thus, when the amended complaint does not introduce new issues, cause of action, or demands, the suit is deemed to have commenced on the date the original complaint was filed. (Alpha Plus International Enterprises Corp. v. PCIC, G.R. No. 202761, 10 Feb. 2021)
Supplemental Pleadings (2008 BAR)
A supplemental pleading is one which sets forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. (Sec. 6, Rule 10, ROC, as amended)
Amended Pleading vs. Supplemental Pleading
AP: Refers to the facts existing at the time of filing of original pleading
SP:Refers to facts occurring after the filing of the original pleading.
AP2: Supersedes the original
SP2: Merely supplements the original pleading.
AP3: May be amended without leave of court before a responsive pleading is filed
SP3: Always with leave of court
AP4: It has retroactive application.
SP4: It sets forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.
AP5: Amendment must be appropriately marked.
SP5: There is no such requirement in supplemental pleadings. (Herrera, 2007)
