G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992
CONTECH CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JERRY A. KHO, WEIJEN A. KHO and WILLEN A. KHO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GREENBELT SQUARE, INC., respondents.

FACTS

On August 8, 1980, petitioner Contech Construction Technology & Development Corporation and respondent Greenbelt Square, Inc. entered into a construction agreement. Petitioners secured surety bonds from Philippine British Assurance Co., Inc. (Phil-British) and Metropolitan Insurance Co. (Metropolitan). On October 21, 1981, respondent terminated the agreement due to petitioners’ alleged failure to comply with its terms. On March 24, 1982, respondent filed two separate complaints: Civil Case No. 45321 against petitioners and Phil-British for collection of a sum of money, and Civil Case No. 45322 against petitioners and Metropolitan for collection of a sum of money. Petitioners moved to dismiss the second complaint on the ground of litis pendentia. The Intermediate Appellate Court, on May 4, 1984, held that there was a splitting of a cause of action and nullified the trial court’s orders denying the motion to dismiss; this decision became final on August 2, 1984. On August 8, 1984, respondent filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint in the first case (Civil Case No. 45321) to implead Metropolitan and include the cause of action from the dismissed second case, and to consolidate the cases. The trial court denied this motion on October 3, 1984, and denied a motion for reconsideration on January 13, 1987. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which, on July 24, 1987, directed the trial court to admit the amended complaint. Petitioners filed the present petition, contending that the appellate court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended complaint, arguing that the previous dismissal of the second complaint barred its reinstitution by amendment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in directing the trial court to admit the amended complaint of respondent Greenbelt Square, Inc., which sought to implead a new party and include a cause of action from a previously dismissed complaint, despite the rule against splitting a cause of action and the finality of the judgment dismissing the second complaint.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. In this case, no responsive pleading had been filed by petitioners when respondent filed its motion to amend the complaint; thus, amendment was a matter of right. The amended complaint did not change the cause of action nor was it intended for delay; its purpose was to obviate the splitting of the cause of action and to obtain a speedy determination of the controversy in one proceeding. The rulings in Jimenez vs. Camara and City of Bacolod vs. San Miguel Brewery, cited by petitioners, are inapplicable as they involve situations where a second complaint was filed after a final decision on the merits. Here, the first and second complaints were not yet set for pre-trial or trial, and no responsive pleadings had been filed. The amendment was therefore proper and should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits and to decide the case on its merits.