Remington Industrial Sales Corp v CA May 29, 2002 Ynares-Santiago, J. a!ts "etitioner Remington Industrial #iled a !

!omplaint #or sum o# money and damagaes arising #rom $rea!% o# !ontra!t against prin!ipal de#endant Industrial Steels, &td 'IS&(. erro )rading *M+, ' erro( and respondent +ritis% Steel 'Asia( &td. -ere impleaded as alternative de#endants. IS& and +ritis% Steel sepaately moved #or dismissal o# t%e !omplaint on t%e ground t%at it #ailed to state a !ause o# a!tion against t%em. R)C denied t%e motion to dismiss. IS& t%en #iled its ans.er to t%e !omplaint. +ritis% Steel, on t%e ot%er %and, #iled a petition #or !ertiorari and pro%i$ition in t%e CA. Mean.%ile, Remington soug%t to amend its !omplaint $y adding !ertain allegations t%at are !onstitutive o# a !ause o# a!tion against +ritis% Steel. Remington t%en #iled a Mani#estation and Motion in t%e !ertiorari and pro%i$ition !ase pending in t%e CA. In said Mani#estation and Motion, Remington in#ormed te CA t%at it #iled a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint $e#ore t%e R)C. )RIA& C/0R) noted Remington1s Amended Complaint and %eld t%e pro!eeding in a$eyan!e until #inal resolution $y t%e CA o# t%e !ertiorari and pro%i$ition !ase.

CA granted t%e .rit o# !ertiorari and ordered t%e trial 2udge to dismiss t%e Remington1s !omplaint against +ritis% Steel, .it%out pre2udi!e.

Issue -/3 t%e CA !orre!tly ordered t%e dismissal o# t%e !omplaint against +ritis% Steel, despite t%e #a!t t%at Remington %ad e4er!ised its rig%t to ament t%e de#e!tive !omplaint under Se!. 2 Rule 50 o# t%e RoC. ,eld 3/. "rior to t%e #iling o# an ans.er, t%e plainti## %as t%e a$solute rig%t to amend t%e !omplaint .%et%er a ne. !ause o# a!tion or !%ange in t%eory is introdu!ed 'Se! 2, Rule 50(. )%e reason is implied in Se!. 6, Rule 50, .%i!% disallo.s su$stantial amendments .it%out leave o# !ourt a#ter an ans.er %as $een served, $e!ause any material !%ange in t%e allegations !ontained in t%e !omplaint !ould pre2udi!e t%e rig%ts o# t%e de#endant .%o %as already set up a de#ense in %is ans.er. I# t%e de#endant %as not yet #iled an ans.er, t%en !%anges in t%e !omplaint !annot result in a violation o# %is rig%ts sin!e said de#endant %as not presented any de#ense t%at !an $e altered or a##e!ted $y t%e amendment o# t%e !omplaint. urt%er, t%e rig%t granted to t%e plainti## to amend %is !omplaint $e#ore an ans.er %as $een served is not pre!luded $y t%e de#endant1s #iling o# a motion to dismiss or any ot%er pro!eeding !ontesting t%e !omplaint1s su##i!ien!y. /t%er.ise, t%e rig%t to amend a pleading under Se!. 2, Rule 50 .ill $e rendered ine##e!tual sin!e all a de#endant %as to do is to

!%allenge t%e ade7ua!y o# a !omplaint $e#ore %e #iles an ans.er t%ereto. Moreover, amendment o# pleadings is #avored and s%ould $e li$erally allo.ed in t%e interest o# 2usti!e and to avoid delay o# trials and multipli!ity o# suits. &astly, t%e #a!t t%at ot%er de#endants %ave #iled t%eir ans.ers to %e !omplaint does not $ar Remington1s rig%t to amend its !omplaint against +ritis% Steel. -%ere some, $ut not all, o# t%e de#endants %ave ans.ered, t%e plainti## may still amend %is !omplaint against t%e non-ans.ering de#endant, $ut not as against t%e ot%er de#endants .%o %ave already ans.ered. 8ispositive Remington1s petition #or !ertiorari granted. CA de!ision set aside. R)C ordered to admit Remington1s Amended Complaint.