Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Spouses Salvosa sued petitioner Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) for damages due to the failure to transmit a telegram on time. RCPI moved for dismissal, alleging failure to state a cause of action as there was no allegation of fraud or bad faith. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint. Before receiving the dismissal order, private respondents filed an amended complaint alleging bad faith. After receiving the dismissal order, they filed a motion for reconsideration. RCPI opposed, arguing the motion was filed out of time and the amendment was improper as it introduced a subsequently accrued action. The RTC granted the motion for reconsideration, setting aside the dismissal, ruling that private respondents were entitled to amend as a matter of right since the order had not become final and no responsive pleading was served. RCPI's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: RCPI filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), imputing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC for setting aside the dismissal and admitting the amended complaint. RCPI argued that private respondents could not amend their complaint by changing the theory from negligence to bad faith to confer jurisdiction. The CA dismissed RCPI's petition, upholding the right to amend under Section 2 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court and stating the allegation of bad faith did not change the theory or cause of action, which remained breach of contract. RCPI's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the trial court's order setting aside the dismissal and admitting the amended complaint. Whether private respondents were entitled to amend their complaint as a matter of right.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Private respondents were entitled to amend their complaint as a matter of right.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the trial court's order setting aside the dismissal and admitting the amended complaint because the admission of the amended complaint was proper since it was filed before any responsive pleading was served by the petitioner. The motion to dismiss filed by RCPI is not considered a responsive pleading under the Rules. On whether private respondents were entitled to amend their complaint as a matter of right: Yes, private respondents were entitled to amend their complaint as a matter of right. Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. The limitation imposed in the case of Torres vs. Tomacruz, which requires that the cause of action or defense shall not be substantially changed or the theory of the case altered, does not apply here because that case involved an amendment filed after an answer had been submitted. In the present case, the amendment was timely filed before any responsive pleading. The apprehension that this right could be abused is unfounded due to the limitation that such amendment can only be done "only once as a matter of course."
Main Doctrine
Under Section 2, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, a party has an absolute right to amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, even if the amendment introduces a new cause of action or changes the theory of the case. A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading.