TOPIC: AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS  SC ordered that the cases involving Resolutions 2,3 and 4 be consolidated with

nvolving Resolutions 2,3 and 4 be consolidated with the

RTC. It went on to annul Resolution #3 and allowed Banco to reopen its business.
CENTRAL BANK BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS (CB-BOL) v. BANCO FILIPINO  During the pendency of the cases with the RTC, the Central Bank Act of 1993 took
SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK effect. The CB was abolished and the BSP took its place, the CB-BOL.
G.R. No. 173399/February 21, 2017 / Sereno, J  Banco filed a motion to admit amended/supplemental complaint which sought
Digested By: Puno, Ricardo Francisco D. the CB-BOL for the CB. It also prayed for 18 Billion in damages.
PETITIONERS Central Bank Board of Liquidators  RTC: Motion Granted.
RESPONDENTS Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank  A decade later, Banco filed a motion to admit second amended/supplemental
complaint. This sought to include the BSP as successor of the old CB because of
its arbitrary and oppressive acts against Banco when it reopened.
DOCTRINE  RTC : Motion Granted. Certiorari to CA.
 CA: Affirmed RTC
1. Rule 10 of the Rules of Court allows the parties to amend their pleadings (a)
by adding or striking out an allegation or a party's name; or (b) by correcting ISSUES
a mistake in the name of a party or rectifying a mistaken or an inadequate WON RTC erred in admitting the Second Amended/ Supplemental Complaint. –
allegation or description in the pleadings for the purpose of determining the YES.
actual merits of the controversy in the most inexpensive and expeditious
manner of amendment. HELD
The option to amend pleadings has its restrictions. It cannot be used to set (1) Second Amendment was Improper
up a cause of action not existing at the time of the filing of the complaint.
Rule 10 of the Rules of Court allows the parties to amend their pleadings (a)
2. Rule 10 also allows the parties to supplement their pleadings by setting forth by adding or striking out an allegation or a party's name; or (b) by correcting
transactions, occurrences, or events that happened since the date of the a mistake in the name of a party or rectifying a mistaken or an inadequate
pleading sought to be supplemented. This also has limitations. allegation or description in the pleadings for the purpose of determining the
actual merits of the controversy in the most inexpensive and expeditious
3. In Leobrera v. CA , it was held that the supplemental complaint must be manner.
founded on the same cause of action that was raised in the original
complaint. In Planters Development Bank v. LZK Holdings & Development The option to amend pleadings has its restrictions. It cannot be used to set
Corporation it was decided that a if supplemental pleading technically states up a cause of action not existing at the time of the filing of the complaint.
a new cause of action, it should not be a bar to its allowance, still, the matter
stated in the supplemental complaint must have a relation to the cause of In this case, the cause of action in the original complaint was the alleged
action set forth in the original pleading so that the principal and core issues illegal closure of Banco by the old CB while the cause of action of the
raised by the parties in their original pleadings remain the same. second amended/supplemental complaint was the oppressive acts of the
BSP after the former reopened. As such, they constitute different causes of
action. Banco’s argument that it only sought to add additional party-
defendants is disproved by the fact that their prayer in the second amended/
FACTS. supplemental complaint is that BSP be ordered to pay damages.
 Monetary Board of the Central Bank (CB) issued a resolution (Resolution #1)
allowing Banco Filipino(Banco) to operate as a savings bank. (2) Second Supplemental Pleading was improper
 However 4 years later, it issued another resolution (Resolution #2) placing Banco Rule 10 also allows the parties to supplement their pleadings by setting forth
under conservatorship. Banco filed a complaint against CB with the RTC for the transactions, occurrences, or events that happened since the date of the
annulment of said resolution. pleading sought to be supplemented. This also has limitations.
 CB issued another resolution (Resolution #3) ordering the closure of Banco and its
placement under receivership. Again, Banco filed a complaint with the RTC In Leobrera v. CA , it was held that the supplemental complaint must be
assailing CB’s act of putting the former under recievership. founded on the same cause of action that was raised in the original
 Because of its impending closure, Banco filed a petition for certiorari with the CA complaint. In Planters Development Bank v. LZK Holdings & Development
seeking to annul Resolution #3. The case reached SC and was still pending there. Corporation it was decided that a if supplemental pleading technically states
 While the case was pending with the SC, CB issued another resolution (Resolution a new cause of action, it should not be a bar to its allowance, still, the matter
#4) placing Banco under Liquidation. stated in the supplemental complaint must have a relation to the cause of
 action set forth in the original pleading so that the principal and core issues scrapped, for then no pleading would be susceptible of amendment.
raised by the parties in their original pleadings remain the same.
FACTS.
Banco’s cause of action in the second amended/supplemental complaint has
no relation to the cause of action in the amended/supplemental complaint as  Spouses Dela Cruz filed a complaint for Quieting of title (QoT) against Guntalilib
they involved different acts or omissions, transactions and parties and other heirs of Bernardo Tumaliuan with the RTC.
 They alleged that the property came into the possession of Aurelio by conveyance
(3) Amendment/Supplement violates the rules on joinder of parties and of a part to him from his father and through a quitclaim over another part in his favor
causes of action by his brother. Guntatalib and his co-heirs have never set foot on the property.
Aurelio later sold parts of the property to different buyers
The effect of the admission is that the causes of action therein would be  They also alleged that Guntatalib petitioned the RTC (LRC Case) for reconstitution
joined with those in the original Complaint. The joinder of causes of action is or issuance of a new certificate of title to replace an allegedly lost unnumbered
indeed allowed under Rule 2, Sec 5 of the Rules of Court  but if there are OCT which was issued to his predecessor, Tumaliuan. RTC granted.
multiple parties, the joinder is made subject to the rules on joinder of parties  Guntatalib filed a motion to dismiss against the QoT petition alleging among
under Section 6, Rule 3. Specifically, before causes of action and parties can others that Spouses Dela Cruz failed to implead all the heirs of Tumaliuan who are
be joined in a complaint involving multiple parties, (1) the right to relief indispensable parties to the case and that the complaint’s verification and
must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and (2) certification against forum shopping were defective.
there must be a question of law or fact common to all the parties.
 Spouses Dela Cruz filed a motion to admit amended complaint further alleging
that their own title which was issued earlier than the unnumbered OCT of
Tumaliuan which was subsequently lost by Guntatalib; and that the latter was able
Applying this to the case, damages prayed for by Banco did not arise from to procure a new copy thereof through fraud and misrepresentations.
the same transaction. The damages prayed for in the first  Guntatalib opposed as the amended complaint did not allegedly comply with Rule
Amended/Supplemental Complaint arose from the closure of Banco by the 16, Secs 4, 5 and 6 as no date of hearing and that the verification and
defunct CB and its MB, the damages prayed for in the Second certification against non-forum shopping was defective. Lastly, they also allege
Amended/Supplemental Complaint arose from the alleged acts of that the said amended complaint sought to set aside the decision in the LRC case.
oppression committed by the BSP against respondent. For these irregularities, Guntatalib implies that the amended complaint is a mere
scrap of paper.
Second, there is no common question of fact or law between the parties involved. The  RTC: Admitted Amended Complaint and denied the Motion to Dismiss.
acts attributed by Banco to the BSP are events that happened after this Court ordered  During pendency of appeal to CA, the parties’ agreed that the respondents should
the respondent bank's reopening. These acts have no relation whatsoever to those amend their complaint after Guntatalib and his co-heirs submit the complete list of
alleged in the original Complaint, which related to the propriety of the closure and Tumaliuan’s heirs.
liquidation of respondent as a banking institution. .  CA: Affirmed RTC.

ISSUES
PETITION IS GRANTED WON RTC erred in admitting the Amended Complaint. – NO.

GUNTALILIB VS. AURELIO DELA CRUZ AND SALOME DELA CRUZ HELD
G.R. No. 173399/July 7, 2016 / Del Castillo, J Guntatalib’s argument that the amended complaint be disallowed for failure of the
Digested by: Puno, Ricardo Francisco D. complaint to implead the indispensable parties has been rendered moot by the
parties’ agreement during the pendency of the appeal with the CA
PETITIONERS Felizardo Guntalilib
RESPONDENTS Aurelio Dela Cruz and Salome Dela Cruz Next, his claim that the RTC should not have admitted the Spouses' Amended
Complaint since the original Complaint on which it was based is void for having a
defective verification and certification against forum-shopping, is untenable. A party to
DOCTRINE a civil case is precisely given the opportunity to amend his pleadings, under certain
conditions, in order to correct the mistakes found therein; if one were to follow
A party to a civil case is precisely given the opportunity to amend his pleadings, under Guntatalib's reasoning, then the rule on amendment of pleadings might just as well be
certain conditions, in order to correct the mistakes found therein; if one were to follow scrapped, for then no pleading would be susceptible of amendment. In the case at
Guntatalib's reasoning, then the rule on amendment of pleadings might just as well be bar the Spouses' Complaint was amended even before petitioner could file any
responsive pleading thereto; under Rule 10, Sec of the Rules of Court , a party may  Paltinca filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing among others that Ejera failed to
amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive exhaust administrative remedies. Ejera opposed.
pleading is served. Since a Motion to Dismiss is not a responsive pleading, the court  RTC deemed the Motion to Dismiss submitted for resolution.
has to allow the Spouses to submit their amended complaint.  RTC: Dismissed case, Officer Orders Nos. 008 and 005 are legal.
No motion to admit the same was required; as the amendment is allowed as a matter  CA: Affirmed RTC.
of right, prior leave of court was unnecessary.
ISSUES
DECISION.
PETITION IS DENIED (1)WON Ejera failed to exhaust administrative remedies– YES

HELD
EJERA V. MERTO The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies recognizes exceptions,
G.R. No. 163109/January 22, 2014 / Bersamin, J./ specifically:
Digested by: Puno, Ricardo Francisco D. xxxxxxxxxxx
NATURE Petition for Certiorari, etc. (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
PETITIONERS Marichu G. Ejera decided by the courts of justice;
RESPONDENTS Beau Henry L. Merto and Edwin Vergara xxxxxxxxxxx

The exceptions did not cover the petitioner’s case. In her complaint, she assailed
DOCTRINE Office Order No. 008 on three legal grounds, namely: (a) the re-assignment, being
whimsical and indiscriminate, violated the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and
Other Personnel Actions; (b) Merto had no power to investigate her, considering that
FACTS. the Provincial Governor was the proper disciplining authority; and (c) whether the
letter of Merto requiring her to explain her refusal to follow Office Order No. 008
 Ejera was the Agricultural Center Chief in the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist in should be under oath. Still, her immediate resort to the RTC remained premature,
Negros Occidental. Upon the retirement of the supervising agriculturist, she applied because the legal issues raised were clothed with factual issues, like whether or not
but another person was appointed. She protested the appointed before the CSC Merto had issued Office Order No. 008 because of her having attacked him in her
which however dismissed her protest. protest against as the appointee to the position of Supervising Agriculturist, and
 Meanwhile, Merto as the Provincial Agriculturist issued Office Order No. 008 which whether or not her reassignment constituted banishment from her office in
re-assigned several personnel to far-flung areas of the province. Dumaguete City. She further averred that the reassignment had been whimsical and
 Ejera was one of those to be assigned. She disobeyed and was asked to explain indiscriminate, an averment that surely called for factual basis. The factual issues
her reasons therefor, she also did not comply with this. could only be settled by a higher policy-determining provincial official like the
 Vergara, the Provincial Legal Officer summoned her to a conference but she Provincial Governor by virtue of his authority, experience and expertise to deal with
walked out in the middle thereof as the former refused to record her counsel’s the issues. The Provincial Governor should have been given a very meaningful
objections to the question. opportunity to resolve the matter and to exhaust all opportunities for its resolution
 Ejera filed a complaint for injunction with the RTC assailing that Merto issued the before bringing the action in court.
order just to virtually banish her because of her attacks against him. .
 During the pendency of the case, the RTC proposed the possible reconsideration of (2) WON Paltingca’s Motion to Dismiss can be resolved before the admission of
the said order to which Merto and Vergara expressed willingness to consider the the supplemental complaint- YES
proposal of the RTC. However, they first had to confer with the Provincial Governor
who unfortunately was running for re-election at the time and so they to wait for Ejera insists that the RTC erroneously resolved Paltinca’s motion to dismiss without
after the elections to submit their written proposals.. first admitting her supplemental pleading.
 After the elections, Ejera sought to declare Merto and Vergara in default for failure
The insistence is not correct. Ejera filed her supplemental complaint to assail Office
to answer the complaint. RTC granted
Order No. 005, and thereby raised issues identical to those raised in her original
 Before the ex parte hearing of the case, Ejera sought the admission (was never
complaint involving Office Order No. 008. Hence, the RTC could already resolve
admitted) of a supplemental complaint to implead one Gregorio Paltingca who
Paltinca’s motion to dismiss even without first admitting the supplemental complaint.
issued Office Order No.005 which amended Merto’s order but had the same effect
Unlike an amended complaint, her supplemental complaint could exist “side by
of re-assigning her but this time much farther.
side” with the original complaint, because the supplemental complaint averred
 Ejera alleged that the latest office order was not posted on the bulletin board of the facts supervening from the filing of the complaint. Meaning to say that the court
provincial agriculturalist and that she was not given a copy of the same. could rule on the issue even without admitting her supplemental complaint.
  Respondents filed an unverified supplemental appeal. They attached
Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. Upon motion of a party the court may, photocopied and computerized copies of list of employees with ATM cards. This list
upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve also showed the amounts allegedly deposited in the employees’ ATM cards. They
a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events also attached documentary evidence showing that the petitioners were dismissed
which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be for cause and had been accorded due process.
supplemented. The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days  Loon et. Al opposed and sought to expunge the appeal from the records mainly
from notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading. because it was unverified
 NLRC: Admitted Respondents’ Supplemental Appeal.
DECISION.  CA Affirmed

PETITION IS DENIED ISSUES

WON NLRC erred in admitting the supplemental appeal despite being
unverified. – NO.

HELD
Neither the laws nor the rules require the verification of the supplemental appeal.
Loon et.al v. Power Master, Inc. Tri-C General Serices and Spouses Alumisin Furthermore, verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement. It is mainly
G.R. No. 189404/December 11, 2013 / Brion, J. intended for the assurance that the matters alleged in the pleading are true and
Digested By: Puno, Ricardo Francisco D. correct and not of mere speculation. Also, a supplemental appeal is merely an
NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari addendum to the verified memorandum on appeal that was earlier filed in the
PETITIONERS Wilgen Loon et.al present case; hence, the requirement for verification has substantially been complied
RESPONDENTS Power Master, Inc. Tri-C General Serices and Spouses with.
Alumisin
DECISION.
PETITION IS DENIED

DOCTRINE
Carlos Leobrera v. Court of Appeals and Bank of the Philippine Islands
Neither the laws nor the rules require the verification of the supplemental appeal.
Furthermore, verification is a formal, not a jurisdictional, requirement. It is mainly G.R. No. 80001 / February 27, 1989 / Cortes, J.
intended for the assurance that the matters alleged in the pleading are true and Digested By: Puno, Ricardo Francisco D.
correct and not of mere speculation. NATURE Petition for Review on Certiorari
PETITIONERS Carlos Leobrera
FACTS. RESPONDENTS Court of Appeals and Bank of the Philippine Islands

 Power Master, Inc. (Power) and Tri-C General(Tri-C) services employed and
assigned Loon et. Al as janitors and leadsmen in several PLDT offices in Manila.
 Loon et. Al subsequently filed a complaint for money claims with the NLRC against DOCTRINE
Respondents alleging that the latter did not pay them their wages, overtime pay,
holiday pay etc. This complaint was later amended to include illegal dismissal as a Rule 10, Sec 6 states that “Matters Subject of Supplemental Pleading- Upon motion
cause of action. of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and such terms as such as are
 LA: Partially for Loon et.al as they failed to substantiate their right to the other just, permit to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences
money claims. Both parties appeal to the NLRC. or events which happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.
 Loon. Et al disputed the LA’s denial of their right to the other money claims. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party should plead thereto, it shall so
Respondents disputed the LA’s ruling on the ground that the latter did not acquire order, specifying the time therefor”
jurisdiction over the former
 Respondents claimed that they were not personally served with summons and FACTS.
other processes. They also claimed that the Loon et. Al received minimum wages,
service incentive leave and 13th month pays. As proof thereof they attached  Leobrera was granted a credit facility by BPI which was secured by two real estate
photocopied and computerized copies of payroll sheets to their memorandum of mortgages which was later converted into two 90-day promissory notes
appeal.  When the loan matured, Leobrera failed to pay which prompted BPI to foreclose.
 Before BPI could initiate foreclosure proceedings, Leobrera filed a complaint for
injunction which the RTC granted.
 BPI tried to foreclose again. This prompted Leobrera to file a supplemental
complain with the RTC which although had a notice of hearing, the same did not
indicate the time and place thereof.
 RTC: Admitted Supplemental Complaint.
 BPI only received a copy of the motion to file the supplemental complaint a day
after the RTC admitted the same.
 BPI filed for prohibition with the CA.
 CA: Granted, stating that the Motion to File the Supplemental Complaint by
Leobrera was defective for lack of notice of hearing. Leobrera Appeals.

ISSUES

WON Court of Appeals erred in stating that Motion to File Supplemental

Complaint by Leobrera was defective for lack of notice of hearing -- No

HELD

Rule 10, Sec 6 states that “Matters Subject of Supplemental Pleading- Upon motion
of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and such terms as such as are
just, permit to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences
or events which happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.
If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party should plead thereto, it shall so
order, specifying the time therefor”

The requirement of reasonable notice was not fulfilled: BPI only learned of the motion
on a day after the RTC admitted the same.

Neither was the requirement of specifying the time therefore fulfilled because the
notice of hearing was invalid due to there being no time and place of hearing
specified therein.

Thus, the CA did not err in stating that the Motion to File Supplemental Complaint
filed by Leobrera was defective for lack of notice of hearing.

DECISION.
PETITION IS DENIED