oa

~epubli c of tlJe liJ Hipptnes

.a. I '
~,
e,...__ ..u..-!_-~i.,:,.
-,.,.,.m" a..t.- rll"ou·
~ rt'

SECO!\TD DlVl ,'ION

i
HEIRS OF PIO TEJADA AND .R. ~o. 250542
SOLEDAD TEJADA, repres.;nted
i
by PIO DOMINGO TEJADA, I
P esent:
Petitioners~
i

- versus - LI O~EN, S.A.J., Chai1person,

LkzA..~0-JAVIER,
LhPEJ;z, M.,
GARR~{ B. HAY, in substitution of ;f~4A~PAO,*" and
]\/f.YR~AL. 1-IAY, represented by hi.s l "-',i JI,., JJ.
Atton:iey-iu-J:<'act, GOMERCIN~")Q"
LITONG,
P omt!ilgated:

-+---'---
~CT 10 2022 ~
X---··--····-- ··-· -------- ------------ - • ----------------1-- ' ----···---------·----- ------- X.

DECISION

LOPEZ, J\/L, J.:

Bona flde amendments to pleadings are allowed at any stage of the

proceedings so that e'/sT;' case ;nay, !·s muchlas poss;bl~, be_det?rmined c,n it~
r~al facts, aff.:)fdHlf?~ ?on:p_lete r~:\1er to sl! l'fe ~artie.s n,1vc.1vec1, m th? cas?- ·
1h1''< ""'
,._ -4~•, '' m 0
~··r
l--'-0 U. Jct.Lt..,. ··,'.·J··•·'·•••a
,. .~
1 'f""'"
t,j_,.__;_:_,,,J}..,.1. J v .. ..,_.}:, ,,,t,·u l,.,:;,, ,- ...., 'B1pe•
'J"fl-"! ''"'')~" !..:-< _, d.,..,'...!. ;.,,,.,~~u .. _lil. ~•1011s
1,.~ h-.\. ,,-~,,.- Vl.. f·,1·
L,_

leave to fiJe ar:.1end.~d -pJeadingS . __ '?'.rith l.iberc:Htv, r .. ¢.c oarB.rnount

I r
consideration
~.:--j>-10 •·hat;.;
,..,._.;, b .... ~ H. {~Ot;S
~ pot
·~ a-0•
..1. ~
1 .:::..ar
JJ•~·
..:. (i•y1,;-
-.!..(. - i,hr-"
£,..., mn·frr~n
t_.,,_._cJ 4' {y~
J. , 1C'"='V(''
.,.;,....i.. -- 1VJ_.:;'
·r.'- ,__, \?,{~~n
.. ,. ___-;nt;->--ri1
--At 1., i-o ,i_e!~-y•
~ .,,,.,.,_

;'\ . '),-..-~,=-d· ·,u~ 2 '

t n~a pH.-~c
1
C lf,,b··.

- .. - - ~ - - - -
"'Gomersir.de-'' ii, some :jarts of;.he ."'olt.-;.
** f~esig:iattd ad<litio:1_;11 rnernt'.er _:ic;z .i. J. ~. 1Jp0:: ?er P.~lf!e,r :ved ~~~t~1,-n_~·-e_1_'_t~~ '.LlYI?: __ ~ r• •

Spouses Tol!(,np;ha, ·1 ;: Ban-g.,o Al:1?{tj'un--1l1ar,,1: /{M•·al J,::r,1t fn.~:., 119L· .1):11;. )0~r. 51 t (2D 1h) I Pn J. Penas-
8err..abe, ~-irst Div~slon]; and .YI.rji.·k:v 1- u_;,7~/--({r,µ;.p1.i'·ce~ Asset' :1-Jc:,na_:-!,ement, bv·., 762 PhiL 198. 207
(20~5) tP~r J. P·e-r~_,-;_ first Divisicrn].
Id.

/
· Decision· 2 G.R. No. 250542 .

--:..... This Petition for Review on Certiorari3 under Rule 45 of the Rules of•
Court assails the Decision4 dated August 7, 2019 and the Resolution5 dated
November 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 159049,
which dismissed petitioners Heirs of Pio Tejada (Pio) and Soledad Tejada's
(petitioners) Petition for Certiorari. 6 The petition dismissed by th" CA
questioned the Orders dated August 17, 20187 and December 3, 2018 8 of the
Regional Trial Court ofVirac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 (RTC) in Civil Case
No. 2471, denying petitioners' Motion for Leave and to Admit Attached
Amended Answer with Counterclaim9 (Motion for Leave).

The present controversy finds its roots from the Complaint for Quieting
ofTitle 10 filed by Myrna L. Hay (tviyrna) against petitioners. Myrna averred
that petitioners' father, Pio, sold the disputed parcel ofland to Harn Gen Beach
Resort and Hotel Corporation (Harn Gen) on November 12, 1988 as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. 11 The property later found its way to
her when Harn Gen sold it on March 5, 1992 as evidenced by another Deed
of Absolute Sale. 12 Curiously, Myrna also presented another Deed of Ab.solute
Sale, 13 purporting to show that Pio sold the same property to her on May 28,
1997.

Petitioners, on their own, filed an Answer14 dated August 26, 2016,

which sought for the dismissal of Myrna's Complaint on the ground that the
deeds of sale which purportedly conveyed title over the property to Myrna
was falsified, as their father's signature thereon was forged. 15

The case was initially set for pre-trial on September 28, 2016. But due
to several postponements, pre-trial ensued only on June 28, 2017. 16 On even
date, the RTC issued the Pre-Trial Order, 17 which states that the trial was
scheduled to begin on October 25, 2017. 18 However, the initial trial was
likewise postponed several times at Myrna's or her counsel's instance for
several reasons. 19 Eventually, instead of proceeding to trial, the RTC issued
an Order2° dated June 27, 2018 referring the case to undergo mediation on
July 19, 2018.

3
Rollo, pp. 2"1-4 7. •
4 Id. at 8--14. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
5
Id. at 17-18.
6
Id. at 252-278.
7 Id. at 211-212. Penned by Presiding Judge Lclu P. Contreras.
8 Not attached to the rollo; see id. at 11.
9
Id. at 174-190.
10 Id. at 87-9L
11
Id. at 93.
12
Id. at 94.
13
Id.at95.
14
Id. at J 18--124.
15
Id. at 120-123.
16 id. at 10.
17
Jd. at 141-145.
18
Id. at 144.
19 See id. at 146-168.
20
Id. at 169-170.

r
Decision 3 G.R. No. 250542

On July 6, 2018, petitioners, through ounsel this time filed a Motion

for Leave21 for their • .
Amended Answer to be admitted for ' the purpose of
"clarify[ing] several matters and [to] hasten the' determination of the actual
merits of the controversy[.]" 22 Specifically, petitioners averred that the
Amended Answer: (I) specifies wi:th particu~arity which of the allegations in
the complaint are admitted and denied, and (2) asserts compulsory
counterclaims such as the nullification of the heeds of absolute sale that Myrna
invoked for being falsified, declaration of\petit.ioners' ownership over the
property, and grant of damages. 23 Petitioner~ argi:ied that the admission of the
Amended Answer was warranted because t'ere ;was no responsive pleading
filed for the original Answer, and the case hfs n0t yet gone to trial nor has it
been called for preliminary conference. Finally; the Motion stated that the
leave sought and amendments made were nbt dilatory, but will aid the court
to resolve the case speedily and based on its I ea! facts. 24

In an Order2 5 dated August 17, 2018, the RTC denied the Motion for
Leave because the case had already gone t rough preliminary and pre-trial
conference, contrary to petitioners' claim. In aduition, petitioners' counsels
were ordered to show cause why they shmild riot be cited in contempt for
erroneously asserting that the case had no yet gone through preliminary
conference/pre-trial.26

In compliance with the show cause or er, petitioners' counsels filed an

Explanation,27 stating that their misconcep ion regarding the stage of the
proceedings wa~ d:1e to the RTC Order datetl Jllf-e 27, _2018, whi~h referred
the case to mediation. They averred to havd beheved m good faith that the
case was still on pre-trial stage si~ce Sectioris II and XII, ~art Three of ~.:tvL
No. 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA,28 otherwise known ks the Consolidated and Revised
Guidelines to Implement the Expanded~Coverage of Court-Annexed
Mediation and Judicial Disput~ Resolu ion,. provides _tha! mediation
proceedings are part of the pre-trial stage. ence, they mamtamed that the
amendment of the Answer remains warranted. Petitioners, through counsel,
also filed a Motion for Reconsideration29 of the denial of their Motion for
1
Leave, but was denied in an Order3° dated D cember 3, 2018.

21 /d.at!74-!90.
22 Id. at 174.
23 Id. at 180-190.
14 ld. at !76"-177.
25 Id. at 211-212.
26 Jd.at2l2.
27 Dated September 5,2018. Id. at 216--223.
28 Approved on January 11, 2011.
29 Dated September 7, 2018. Rollo, pp. 224-233.
30 Not attached to the ro!lo; see id. at 11.

r
Decision 4 G.R. No. 250542

On grounds of grave abuse of discretion, petitioners challenged the '

denial of their Motion for Leave before the CA through a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules ofCourt. 31

In a Decision32 dated August 7, 2019, the CA found no grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the RTC in denying petitioners' Motion for Leave
considering that the records show that the case had, indeed, already gone
through the preliminary conference/pre-trial stage. Besides, according to the
CA, the Amended Answer is not necessary since all the material elements of
petitioners' defense, i.e., the deeds of absolute sale that respondent Garry B.
Hay, in substitution of Myrna (respondent), invoked were falsified, had
already been stated in their original Answer. 33 The CA disposed, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Orders dated 17

August 2018 and 3 December 2018 of the Regional Trial Court ofVirac,
Catanduanes, Branch 43, in Civil Case No. 2471 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 34 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

Subsequently, petitioners' l'vfotion for Reconsideration was denied in a

Resolution35 dated November 20, 2019. Hence, this petition.

Petitioners argue that the CA erred in affirming the disallowr:mce of the

Amended Answer because: (1) amendments to pleadings are favored at any
stage of the proceedings; (2) the Motion for Leave was filed before initial trial
and the case was still pending for mediation; and (3) the amendment was
aimed neither to delay the proceedings nor to prejudice respondent but to
clarify certain matters. 36 Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the
allowance of the Amended Answer will only cause further delay in the
proceedings as it contains arguments already stated in the original Answer,
albeit written "in a more scholarly, formal and well[-]researched manner[. ]"37

The petition is meritorious.

It is undisputed that petitioners filed their original Answer back in

August 26, 2016, and they sought its amendment only after the trial court had
concluded the pre-trial conference, wherein "[t]he necessity or desirability of
amendments to the pleadings"38 should have been considered. Aptly so,
31
Id. at 252--278.
32
Id. at 8-14.
33
Id. at 11-14.
34
Id.at 14.
35
Id. at 17-18.
36
Id. at 34.
37
Id. at 339.
38
See Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules ofCou1t which provides:
Section 2. ~Nature and Purpose. - The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall consider:
xxxx
(c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings.
 Decision s G.R. No. 250542

,
petitioners moved for ieave of court to admit their Amended Answer,
recognizing that its filing was i,o ionger a atter of right, but subject to the
trial court's discretion. 39 In the exercise of buch discretion, trial courts may
grant leave and allow the filing of an amendid pleading so long as it dQes not
I
appear that the motion for leave was made i bad faith or with intent to delay
the proceedings. 40

Apropos are Sections 141 and 3,42 Rul. 10 of the Rules of Court, which
allow amendments to pleadings "by addinb [to] or striking out an x x x
inadequate allegation or description in any jother respect, so that the actual
merits of the controversy may speedily b9 detennined, without regard to
technicalities, and in the most expeditious an~ inexpensive manner." The only
limitation under the rules was that the leavlto amend the pleading "may be
refused if it appears to the court that the I otion was made with intent to
delay." Thus, "[a]s a matter of judicial policy, courts are impelled to treat
motions for leave to file amended pleadin~s with liberality[,]" 43 especially
when such motion "is filed during the early tages of [the] proceedings or, at
least, before trial." 44

In this case, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, denied the Motion for
Leave essentially because the case had alrea y gone through preliminary/pre-
trial conference, and a Pre-Trial Order had already been issued. The RTC
ruled:

[Petitioners] claimed that this case " as not proceeded to trial and
has not even called on preliminary conference stage", hence, "the
admission of the instant amended answer is [ore than warranted "

TI1is case had not only gone through Rreliminary conference but had
already issued a ~re:•Trial Order, w1:ich sil[Ilply means _that it has ~one
through both prelrmmary and pre-tnal corlference, which was actively
participated in by [petitioners], through A Loreto S. Ponti, who filed a
Pre-Trial Brief for [petitioners].

xxxx

WHEREFORE, the Motion for L ave and to Admit Attached

Amended Answer with Counterclaim is, here['y, DENIED for lack of merit. ·

39 See Va/enzuelav. CA,518 Phil.68, 76 (2006) [PerJ.Azcu a, Second Division]. ·

40 Spouses Tat!onghari v. Bcmgko Kayan-J/J,2:m Rural Bank, tzc., 792 Phil. 509,516 (2016) (Per J. Perlas-
Bemabe, First Division]. .
41 Section I. Amendments in General. --- Pleadings may be a! ended by adding or strikmg out an aI1egat10n
or the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in thel name of a party or a mistaken or inadequ~te
alleoation or description in any other respect, so that the dctual merits of the controversy may speedily

42 ts
be determined, without regard to technicalities) and in the lnost expeditious and inexpensiv~ manne1:.
Section 3. Amendments by Leave nf c:01wL -- Except prnvided in the next precedmg sect~o~,
substantial amendments may be made only upon leave o court. But such leave may be refused If 1t
appears to the court that the motion vvas made with intent delay. xx x .
43 Yujuico v. United Resour::es Asset lvfanagement, _foe., 76 Phil. 198, 207 (2015) [Per J. Perez, First
Division].
44 Id.; emphasis supplied.

r
Decision 6 G.R. No. 250542
'

MOREOVER, the movant-counsels, Atty. Loreto S. Ponti and Atty. •

Santiago T. Gabionza, Jr., Atty. Justin James D. Fra.'1cisco, are, hereby,
ORDERED to show cause, within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt, why
they should not be cited in contempt of court for lying and misleading this
Court by asserting that this case "has not even called on (sic) preliminary
conference stage" when, in fact, a Pre-Trial Order has already been issued·
way back June 28, 2017.

Finally, since this case is covered by mediation, let this case be

refen-ed to a mediator.

SO ORDERED. 45 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

Conspicuously, the RTC Orders, as well as the assailed CA Decision

and Resolution, omitted determining whether the Motion for Leave was
interposed, only to delay the proceedings. We stress that, in the furtherance of
justice, amendments to pleadings are favored and should be liberally
allowed46 at any stage of the lawsuit47 as long as they are not dilatory. In the
exercise of the discretion to grant or deny leave of court to admit amended
pleadings, the primordial consideration is not when the motion was filed, but
rather whether the an1endments sought to be admitted would aid the court to
decide the case on the merits based on real facts without unnecessary delay,
and help avoid multiplicity of suits. 48 Thus, the filing of the Motion for Leave
after the issuance of the Pre-Trial Order is not reason enough to deny it49 and
to discredit the Amended Answer as a sheer dilatory tactic. 50 Instead, the
Motion for Leave and the Amended Answer it seeks to be admitted should be
examined with circumspection, keeping in mind the purpose of the ru,es in
allowing amendments to pleadings, and the general policy that rules of
procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment ofjustice. 51

A perusal of the Amended Answer readily shows that it specifies with

particularity which of the allegations in the complaint are admitted and
denied, and it clearly sets forth the truth of the matter upon which they rely to
support any denial as required under Section 10,52 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
as opposed to the original Answer. Further, unlike the original Answer, the
Amended Answer specifies special affirmative defenses, as well as
counterclaims, to wit: the nullification of the alleged falsified deeds of
absolute sale; and the grant of damages and attorney's fees. Under these

45
Rollo, p. 212.
46
Quirao v. Quirao, 460 Phil. 605, 61 l (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division].
47
Id. See also Chongv. CA, 554 Phil. 43, 51 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].
48
Yujuico v. United Resources Asset Mancgzment, Inc., 7{j2 Phil. 198, 207 (20i5) [Per J. Perez, First
Dlvision]. See also Chong 1,: CA, id.
49
See Quirao v. Quirao, 460 Phil.605,612 (2003) [Per J. Puno, Third Division]. See also Yviuico v. United
Resources Asset lv[anagement. Inc., id. at 20:1.
50
Yujuico 1.-: United Resow-ces Asset 1i1a.11.agement, Inc., id.
51
Quirac v. Quirao, 460 Phil. 605,612 (2003) [Per j_ Puno, Third Division].
52
Section 10. Specific Denial_ - A defendant must specif.; each material allegation of fact the
truth of which he does not admit and, -..vhenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial. 'Nhere i-l defendant desires to deny only a part of an avennent,
he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a
defendant is without knowiedge or in formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
avennent made in the compiaint, he shaii so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.

I
Decision 7 G.R. No. 250542

conditions, the admission of the Amended Answer is not only more prudent,
but in fact warranted, as it contains alle~ations which are crucial for the
complete and proper disposition of the case to prevent multiplicity of suits and
afford relief to all parties involved in the c se, and also to aid the trial court in
determining the real controversies for re~olution and thereby expedite the
proceedings. 53 All of these form the very b4ses for the liberality of the rules in
allowing amendments to pleadings. 54 Besi4es, the admission of the Amended
Answer will cause no prejudice to respondent since petitioners' defense was
not substantially altered as the CA and respbndent himself pointed out. hence,
we see no basis for respondent's accusatibn that the Amended. Answer was
interposed only to delay the proceedingL Truth be told, respondent and
cou~sel themselves admit that the delay\ is attribu_table to their repeated
motions to postpone the hearings for severil reasons. 05

In sum, we find that the RTC gravel~ abused its discretion in denying
the Motion for Leave on the ground that the case had already gone through
preliminary/pre-trial conference. The attehdant circumstances demonstrate
that the RTC had no cause to deny the 1Jave sought for the admission of
petitioners' Amended Answer. Rather, its gtant would be in keeping with the
time-honored judicial policy of favoring I d affording liberal treatment to
amendments to pleadings, especially those made before the conduct·ofthe
tria1 56 as in this case. In this regard, we reite ate the Court's constant reminder:

We should always bear in mind that !es of procedure are mere tools
designed to facilitate the attainment of Liustice. Their strict and rigid
application especially on technical mattershwhich tends to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Technicality, when it
deserts its proper office as an aid to justice d becomes its great hindrance
57
and chief enemy, deserves scant considerattn from the courts.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition or Review on Certiorari is

GRANTED. The Decision dated August 12019 and the Resolution dated
November 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 159049 are
REVERSED. The Regional Trial Court of irac, Catanduanes, Branch 43, is
DIRECTED to admit the Amended nswer and continue with the
proceedings with utmost dispatch.

53 See Chong" CA, 554 Phil. 43, 50-51 (2007) [Per J. Yn es-Santiago, Third Division].
54
See id. at 51.
55 See rollo, pp. 146-168 and 339-340.
56 Y,yuico " United Resources Asset Management. Inc., 7 2 Phil. 198, 209 (2015) [Per J. Perez, First
Division].
57 Quirao v. Quirao, 460 Phil. 605, 612 (2003)TPer J. Puno, Third Division].

I
Decision 8 G.R. No. 2505j2

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

Senior Associate Justice

AMY,~AVIER
A~sociate Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I ce1tify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had h~en reached ir: eon.sultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

A~~ G. GESlVlUNDO
J'6!c~d '.hief Justice