GR 121397; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121397 April 17, 1997
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DAITY SALVOSA, and RAY DEAN SALVOSA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the Spouses Salvosa, filed a complaint for damages against petitioner RCPI before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City due to RCPI’s failure to transmit a telegram on time. RCPI moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that without allegations of fraud or bad faith, liability for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees could not arise. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
Before receiving the order of dismissal, the Spouses Salvosa filed an Amended Complaint, this time alleging bad faith on the part of RCPI. Upon subsequently receiving the dismissal order, they filed a motion for reconsideration. RCPI opposed, contending the motion was filed out of time and that the amendment was improper as it aimed to introduce a subsequently accrued action. The trial court granted the motion for reconsideration, set aside the dismissal, and admitted the amended complaint, ruling the spouses had a right to amend as no responsive pleading had been served.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the Amended Complaint filed by the Spouses Salvosa.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the right to amend. The legal logic centers on the application of Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which allows a party to amend its pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading; an answer is. Since RCPI had filed only a motion to dismiss and not an answer, no responsive pleading had been served at the time the amended complaint was filed. Consequently, the Spouses Salvosa retained the absolute right to amend their pleading once as a matter of course.
The Court clarified that the limitation cited by RCPI from Torres vs. Tomacruz—that an amendment should not substantially change the cause of action or theory of the case—does not apply when the amendment is made as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is filed. The factual circumstance in Torres involved an amendment filed after an answer had already been submitted, which is procedurally distinct. In this case, the amendment was permissible regardless of whether it introduced a new allegation (bad faith) or theory, as it was filed at a stage when such changes are expressly allowed by the rules. The safeguard against abuse is the rule’s limitation that such amendment can be done only once as a matter of right.