This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| no longer amend their complaint against the former as a matter of right. They may do so only upon leave of court, as provided under Section 3, Rule 10[25] of the same Rules, which they did by filing their Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. In the recent case of Philippine Ports Authority v.William Gothong Aboitiz (WGA), Inc.[26], this Court, in discussing the import of Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, as amended, held that:Interestingly, Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that the phrase "or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered" was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. The clear import of such amendment in Section 3, Rule 10 is that under the new rules, "the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense." This should only be true, however when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a "just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding."[27] On the basis of the foregoing ruling, the denial of petitioners' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint on the ground that the amendment "drastically altered the causes of action of the parties plaintiffs and parties defendants between and among themselves" is erroneous. | |||||