GR L 16667; (January, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16667. January 30, 1962.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, PASCUAL M. PEREZ and NICASIA SARMIENTO, respondents.
FACTS
The Republic filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, seeking to annul an order and a Certificate of Private Woodland Registration issued by the Assistant Director of Forestry to respondents Pascual Perez and Nicasia Sarmiento. The Republic alleged that the certificate covered lands within the Bicol National Park, which is part of the public domain. The respondents had previously withdrawn a related land registration case. The Republic’s petition also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the respondents’ logging operations within the park.
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss the prohibition petition. Before the court could rule on this motion, the Republic filed an amended petition without first securing leave of court. The respondent judge, treating the amended petition as a “mere scrap of paper” for being filed without leave, proceeded to grant the motion to dismiss the original petition. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Republic then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari and mandamus, challenging the lower court’s orders of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the original petition and in refusing to admit the amended petition filed by the Republic.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the proper application of the rules on amendment of pleadings. Under the then Rules of Court, a party could amend its pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading was served. A motion to dismiss is not considered a “responsive pleading” within the meaning of the rule. Since the respondents had filed only a motion to dismiss and not yet an answer, the Republic retained the right to amend its petition without need for prior court approval.
Consequently, the amended petition was validly filed and superseded the original petition. The lower court’s dismissal of the original petition, while a valid amended petition was already on record, was a clear error. The court unlawfully deprived the Republic of a procedural right. Mandamus lies to compel the lower court to admit and consider the amended petition. The Supreme Court also noted that the extraordinary remedy of certiorari was appropriate to correct this patent error and prevent a miscarriage of justice, as the period for appeal could not be definitively counted against the Republic under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the amended petition.