This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We note that subsequent to the bank's counterclaim for the payment of rentals due as of January 31, 1989, the bank also seeks to recover the rentals that accrued after January 31, 1989, which as of August 8, 1993 amounted to P1,123,500.00 as shown by the evidence presented by the bank before the RTC and in the pleadings it had filed before the RTC, CA, and the Court.[40] Although this claim was not alleged in the bank's Answer being an after-acquired claim which was only raised during the trial proper through the testimony dated August 17, 1993 of Ms. Arlene Aportadera,[41] the bank is not barred from recovering these rentals. As we explained in Banco de Oro Universal Bank v. CA,[42] a party is not barred from setting up a claim even after the filing of the answer if the claim did not exist or had not matured at the time said party filed its answer. Moreover, we note that the respondents did not object to the presentation of this evidence, hence, the issue of rentals from August 8, 1993 and onwards was tried with the implied consent of the parties; applying Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,[43] the issue should be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings.[44] Given the implied consent, judgment may be validly rendered on this issue even if no motion had been filed and no amendment had been ordered.[45] | |||||