GR 55228; (February, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55228 February 28, 1989
MIGUELA CABUTIN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. GERONIMO AMACIO, and HON. WENCESLAO M. POLO, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance, Branch I, Catbalogan, Samar, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title against private respondent, alleging he fraudulently included a portion of their land in his survey. They amended their complaint, stating in paragraph 4 that the encroachment was on the “eastern” portion of their property. During trial, the court-appointed commissioner testified the encroachment was actually on the “western” portion. Petitioners thus filed a motion for leave to admit a second amended complaint to change “eastern” to “western” to conform to the evidence.
The respondent judge denied the motion, ruling the amendment was late, would prejudice the defendant, and substantially changed the cause of action. Petitioners filed this special civil action for certiorari after their motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
RULING
Yes, the denial constituted grave abuse of discretion. The amendment sought was permissible under the Rules and did not alter the cause of action. The cause of action remained one for quieting of title, based on the allegation that the respondent’s survey wrongfully included part of the petitioners’ land, creating a cloud on their title. The proposed change from “eastern” to “western” was a correction of a clerical error to conform to the evidence, not a change in the theory of the case. This was evident from the amended complaint’s own description of the property, which bounded it on the west by the respondent.
The issuance of a pre-trial order did not bar the amendment. The Rules on pre-trial do not prohibit amendments after such an order; Rule 10 allows amendments to serve the ends of justice and determine the actual merits of the case. The motion was also not a “mere scrap of paper.” While the notice of hearing was addressed to the clerk of court, the respondent’s counsel personally received a copy on the day of filing, constituting substantial compliance. Finally, the petition properly alleged grave abuse of discretion, as such a legal conclusion can be deduced from the pleaded facts. The Rules should be liberally construed to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the case.