GR 149132; (May, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 149132 ; May 9, 2002
JOSEPHINE B. NG and JESSE NG, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES MARCELO and MARIA FE SOCO, and MARVIN J. SOCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, owners of the “secret recipe” for Jo’s Chicken Barbecue, entered into a partnership with respondents to operate Soco’s Manokan Nook Restaurant. The agreement stipulated that upon dissolution, respondents would lose the right to use the recipe. After the partnership dissolved due to disagreements, petitioners filed a complaint for accounting and injunction, alleging respondents continued the business using the recipe. During a hearing for a preliminary injunction, petitioners discovered that Magno Garcia, respondents’ nephew, was operating a restaurant named Manokan sa Sugbu.
Believing Garcia was a dummy used to circumvent the contractual obligation, petitioners filed a motion to admit an amended complaint to implead Garcia as an additional defendant. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, reasoning that the amendment would compel respondents to alter their defense and subject them to Garcia’s acts and omissions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the amendment was substantial, changed the theory of the case, and Garcia was not an indispensable party.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion to admit the amended complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the lower courts’ rulings. Under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served. Thereafter, substantial amendments require leave of court, which is discretionary. The Court emphasized that amendments should be denied if they introduce a change in the cause of action or theory of the case, cause delay, or are inconsistent with the original complaint.
In this case, respondents had already filed their Answer, so the amendment was no longer a matter of right. The trial court correctly exercised its discretion in denying the motion, finding the amendment substantial as it sought to hold respondents liable not only for their own acts but also for the alleged acts of a co-conspirator, thereby altering their defense and the theory of the case. No grave abuse of discretion was found, as the trial court’s decision was aimed at preventing prejudice to respondents and avoiding a shift in the litigation’s fundamental basis. The appellate court’s affirmation was thus proper.