Ong Peng v. Custodio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Ong Peng filed a suit against defendant Jose Custodio to recover P2,527.30 for goods and materials obtained, plus P500 as attorney's fees. The complaint was based on a promissory note. Procedural History: Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds of prescription. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, attaching the promissory note. The court admitted the amended complaint as no objection was filed and denied the motion to dismiss. Defendant was declared in default for failure to file an answer to the amended complaint. Defendant's motion to set aside the order of default and to allow filing of an answer was denied. Subsequently, judgment was rendered ordering defendant to pay the plaintiff. Defendant's motion for reconsideration, alleging a false and spurious promissory note and a valid defense, was denied, as was another motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Defendant appealed the orders of the Court of First Instance, particularly the order declaring him in default.
Issue(s)
Whether the service of the amended complaint upon the defendant without new summons was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Whether the plaintiff could amend his complaint as a matter of course after a motion to dismiss had been filed. Whether the court erred in denying the motion to set aside the order of default and the subsequent judgment.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,527.30, with legal interest and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of service of the amended complaint without new summons: The Court held that once a defendant has appeared in court, as in this case where the defendant had presented a motion to dismiss, he may be served with an amended complaint without the need for another summons. Ordinary service of such pleading upon him, personally or by mail, would be sufficient, especially when the amended complaint does not introduce new matters or causes of action but merely clarifies the basis of the original claim, such as attaching the promissory note. The Court distinguished this from situations where the defendant has not yet appeared, in which case a new summons is required. The defendant's failure to claim non-receipt of the amended complaint in the ordinary course of mail further supported the validity of the service. On the plaintiff's right to amend the complaint after a motion to dismiss: The Court affirmed that under Section 1 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, a plaintiff has the right to amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is filed. A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading. Therefore, the plaintiff's amendment was permissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the amendment was merely one of form, not changing the cause of action, and that the court has discretion to defer the hearing of a motion to dismiss until the trial if the grounds are not indubitable, as per Section 3 of Rule 8. On the denial of the motion to set aside the order of default and judgment: The Court found that the motion to set aside the order of default lacked an affidavit of merits. Even the subsequent motion for reconsideration under Rule 38, which included an affidavit of merits, was deemed insufficient. The affidavit merely denied the authenticity of the signature on the promissory note, a defense that should have been raised earlier. The Court noted that the plaintiff had presented counter-affidavits with witnesses attesting to the authenticity of the signature. The Court also expressed doubt whether the same issue could be raised again under Rule 38 after being previously decided, emphasizing that this appeared to be a last-minute attempt to defend a losing case. The Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the order of default and the consequent judgment.
Main Doctrine
After a defendant has appeared in court, an amended complaint may be served upon him or his counsel by ordinary mail or other customary modes of service, without the necessity of issuing a new summons, provided the amended complaint does not introduce new causes of action. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading, and a plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is filed.