Demaronsing v. Tandayag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent filed an action for recovery of possession and sought a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent petitioner from constructing a house or performing any act indicative of ownership on the land in dispute during the pendency of the case. Procedural History: The lower court granted the preliminary injunction upon the filing of a bond. Petitioner filed multiple motions for dissolution of the writ and a motion for reconsideration, all of which were denied. Petitioner alleged denial of procedural due process for not being given an opportunity to hire counsel before the initial injunction was granted. He also alleged grave abuse of discretion in the admission of an amended complaint. The Petition: Petitioner filed a certiorari proceeding before the Supreme Court, assailing the validity of the orders of the respondent Judge, primarily the issuance of the preliminary injunction and the denial of his motions.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was denied procedural due process. Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended complaint.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Judge and held that petitioner was not denied procedural due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of procedural due process: The Court held that even if there was an initial defect in the issuance of the preliminary injunction due to alleged lack of opportunity to hire counsel, this was cured by petitioner's subsequent actions. Petitioner filed at least four motions for reconsideration and was heard through counsel on these matters. The Court reiterated the doctrine that a plea of denial of procedural due process does not lie where the defect was subsequently cured by an opportunity to be heard, citing Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. Cadiao. The essence of due process is fairness and justice, and a hearing on a motion for reconsideration provides sufficient opportunity for a party to present their side. Therefore, the imputation of denial of procedural due process was legally untenable. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended complaint: The Court emphasized the well-settled doctrine that amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of justice, citing Alonso v. Villamor and Torres v. Tomacruz. The granting of leave to file amended complaints is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal except in cases of evident abuse. The Court found that the amended complaint did not substantially change the cause of action, which remained predicated on petitioner constructing on a lot claimed by the private respondent in an action for recovery of possession. The difference was merely in the discretion thereof, and amendments that narrow, enlarge, or fortify the original cause of action are permissible to avoid multiplicity of suits and present the real controversies between the parties, as held in Shaffer v. Palma. Thus, there was no grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not lie if the alleged defect of denial of procedural due process was cured by subsequent opportunities to be heard, nor will it lie for errors of judgment or for alleged grave abuse of discretion in admitting an amended complaint, as amendments to pleadings are generally favored in furtherance of justice.