GR 151932; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151932 ; August 19, 2009
HENRY CHING TIU, CHRISTOPHER HALIN GO, and GEORGE CO, Petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, as directors of Asian Water Resources, Inc. (AWRI), executed a Surety Agreement in 1996 to secure an additional loan from respondent Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM). When AWRI defaulted, PBCOM filed a collection case. In their Answer, petitioners claimed the Surety Agreement attached to the complaint was falsified, as the phrase “In his personal capacity” was intercalated below their signatures without their consent. They supported this with a certified copy from the Records Management and Archives Office, which lacked the contested phrase.
PBCOM admitted a bank employee inserted the phrase upon an auditor’s instruction, without informing the notary public. It then filed a Motion for Leave to Substitute the altered annex with the duplicate original notarial copy, which did not contain the insertion, arguing the amendment was to reflect the true document and that petitioners’ liability arose from signing the original agreement regardless of the insertion.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing PBCOM to substitute the altered copy of the Surety Agreement with the notarial copy.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The allowance of the amendment of pleadings is within the sound discretion of the trial court, to be exercised liberally to secure a just determination of the case. The substitution sought was merely to replace an annex with its true and original version from the notary’s file, which was the actual document executed by the parties. This amendment did not alter PBCOM’s cause of action for collection based on the Surety Agreement but merely presented the authentic document.
The Court emphasized that a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is not a remedy for errors of judgment but only for jurisdictional errors. Petitioners failed to prove that the RTC’s discretionary act was done in a capricious or whimsical manner. The RTC’s order served the interest of justice by ensuring the case would be decided based on the correct evidence. The substantive rights of petitioners were not prejudiced, as their defense regarding the nature of their signatures and personal liability remained a triable issue to be fully ventilated during trial on the merits.