G.R. No. L-28101 March 31, 1977
LEGASPI OIL CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, as Judge of Court of First Instance of Manila, R.J. DEL PAN & CO., INC., and LIBERATION STEAMSHIP CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

R.J. del Pan & Co., Inc. filed a money claim against Liberation Steamship Co., Inc. in the City Court of Manila. The City Court ruled in favor of del Pan. Liberation Steamship appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI), where a trial de novo was conducted. After del Pan presented its evidence, Liberation Steamship presented its accountant, who testified that under a “Booking Agreement,” Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. was the shipper liable for the charges del Pan was claiming.
Based on this testimony, CFI Judge Francisco Geronimo ordered del Pan to amend its complaint to include Legaspi Oil as a defendant. Del Pan complied, filing an amended complaint that impleaded Legaspi Oil. Instead of filing an answer, Legaspi Oil moved to dismiss the amended complaint against it. Judge Geronimo denied the motion to dismiss. Without seeking reconsideration, Legaspi Oil filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the amendment of the complaint to include a new party on appeal and in denying the motion to dismiss filed by the newly impleaded party.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the challenged orders. The legal logic is anchored on the procedural limitations governing appeals from inferior courts to Courts of First Instance. Under Rule 40, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, the pleadings from the inferior court are deemed reproduced in the CFI. While parties may file amended pleadings, they cannot change the nature of the cause of action or defenses pleaded in the inferior court, nor can they add new ones. This rule applies even in a trial de novo.
In this case, the original parties in the City Court were only del Pan and Liberation Steamship. Legaspi Oil was not a party. The amendment, by impleading Legaspi Oil and alleging that either it or Liberation Steamship was liable, effectively introduced a new cause of action and changed the theory of the case from what was tried in the inferior court. Such a substantive alteration is impermissible for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the order was issued after del Pan had rested its case and Liberation Steamship had begun presenting evidence, making the joinder improper. Legaspi Oil was neither an indispensable nor a necessary party to del Pan’s claim. The Court also held that a motion for reconsideration was not a prerequisite for certiorari here, as the issues had already been squarely raised and passed upon by the lower court.