GR L 3346; (September, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3346. September 29, 1949.
RICHARD BRESLIN, ET AL. vs. LUZON STEVEDORING COMPANY, ET AL.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a complaint against respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. for money claims. Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that it was sued only as an agent, not the real party in interest. Before the motion was resolved, petitioners filed an amended complaint, with a notice to the adverse party, to cure the defect by alleging respondent was sued as principal. The trial court denied admission of the amended complaint, holding it was filed without prior court leave, and dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals declined to rule on the merits, holding it lacked original jurisdiction because only questions of law were involved, which fall under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and forwarded the case to this Court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in denying admission of the amended complaint and dismissing the original complaint.
RULING
Yes. Under Section 1, Rule 17 (now Rule 10) of the Rules of Court, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Since respondent had not yet filed an answer (the responsive pleading) to the original complaint, petitioners had the absolute right to amend their complaint once without need of prior court leave. The trial court’s refusal to admit the amended complaint was a neglect of a duty enjoined by law, depriving petitioners of a right. The Supreme Court treated the petition for certiorari as one for mandamus to promote a just and speedy disposition. The respondent judge was ordered to admit the amended complaint.
AI Generated by Armztrong.