GR 132753; (February, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132753 February 15, 1999
MARIO SIASOCO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. MARCELINO BAUTISTA JR., Presiding Judge, Branch 215, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City; and the IGLESIA NI CRISTO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were the registered owners of nine parcels of land. After failed negotiations for its sale to respondent Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), petitioners claimed to have contracted the properties to Carissa Homes Development and Properties, Inc. INC, maintaining a sale had been consummated, filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against petitioners and Carissa Homes. Carissa Homes filed its Answer. Pending resolution of petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss, INC purchased the properties from Carissa Homes and subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, dropping Carissa Homes as a defendant and changing the cause of action to a mere case for Damages.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Strike Out the Amended Complaint, arguing it could not be amended without leave of court since a responsive pleading (Carissa Homes’ Answer) had already been filed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion and admitted the Amended Complaint. It also denied petitioners’ subsequent Motion for Suspension, directing them to file their Answer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s admission of the Amended Complaint despite the filing of a responsive pleading by a co-defendant.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The filing of a responsive pleading by one defendant, Carissa Homes, did not bar the plaintiff, INC, from amending its complaint once as a matter of right with respect to the claims against the non-answering defendants, the petitioners. Under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. A “responsive pleading” refers to that which is filed in answer to the claims asserted against the pleader. Since petitioners had not yet filed an Answer (only a Motion to Dismiss), the amendment as to them was a matter of right. The amendment dropping Carissa Homes, which had answered, was permissible with leave of court, which the RTC granted.
Furthermore, the Court held that certiorari was not the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s interlocutory orders admitting the amended complaint and denying suspension, as these were not issued with grave abuse of discretion. The RTC correctly exercised its discretion, and petitioners’ recourse was to proceed to trial and, if aggrieved, to appeal the final judgment. The Court also noted that the RTC had jurisdiction over the original complaint for specific performance with damages, which is a personal action, and thus properly retained jurisdiction over the amended complaint for damages.