GR L 10754; (April, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10754; April 23, 1957
FELIX M. MONTE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE L. MOYA, SANTIAGO G. ORTEGA, AUGUSTO S. CACERES and MANUEL ESTIPONA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Felix M. Monte filed a complaint for replevin with damages against respondents Santiago G. Ortega and Augusto S. Caceres in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, alleging illegal impounding of his trucks. Respondents claimed authority under Section 2753(c) of the Revised Administrative Code. Meanwhile, Provincial Fiscal Manuel Estipona filed a criminal charge against Monte before the Justice of the Peace Court of Iriga for violating the same provision, but Monte was acquitted on reasonable doubt. Following his acquittal, Monte moved to amend his replevin complaint to include Fiscal Estipona as a party defendant, adding a second cause of action alleging that Ortega and Caceres induced Estipona to maliciously prosecute him to evade responsibility for the impounding. Respondents opposed the motion, arguing lack of sufficient cause of action against Estipona. The court, respondent Judge Jose L. Moya, denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. When Monte attempted to appeal these orders, the court refused to give it course, prompting this petition for mandamus to compel approval of the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge acted improperly in denying petitioner’s motion to amend his complaint and subsequently refusing to give course to his appeal from the denial orders.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the respondent Judge erred in refusing to admit the amended complaint based on a perceived misjoinder of parties. The rule on amendment of pleadings (Section 2, Rule 17) is intended to allow all matters in dispute between the parties to be determined in a single proceeding. The first cause of action (illegal impounding by Ortega and Caceres) and the proposed second cause of action (malicious prosecution induced by Ortega and Caceres and carried out by Estipona) are intimately related. Therefore, the amendment fell within the purview of the rule, and its denial frustrated the purpose of the rules of procedure. Consequently, the court acted improperly in denying Monte’s right to appeal from the adverse orders. Respondent Judge was ordered to give course to petitioner’s appeal. No costs were awarded.