5/25/2017 G.R.No.

160736

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
THIRDDIVISION


AIRADSINCORPORATED, G.R.No.160736
Petitioner,
Present:

CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
versus BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
SERENO,JJ.
TAGUMAGRICULTURAL Promulgated:
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION(TADECO), March23,2011
Respondent.
xx

DECISION


BERSAMIN,J:

Assailedviapetitionforreviewoncertiorariarethetworesolutionspromulgatedon February
[1] [2]
24, 2003 and November 13, 2003, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) respectively
dismissed the petitioners petition for certiorari and prohibition, and denied the petitioners
motionforreconsiderationofthedismissal.

We find no reversible error on the part of the CA, and affirm the dismissal of the
petitionerspetitionforcertiorari.



Antecedents

ThiscasestemmedfromCivilCaseNo.278022000oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch
15, in Davao City (RTC) entitled Elva O. Pormento v. Tagum Agricultural Development
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 1/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

CorporationandEdwinYap,anactiontorecoverdamagesforthedeathoftheplaintiffshusband
andattorneysfees

OnApril6,2000,respondentTagumAgriculturalDevelopmentCorporation(TADECO),
as defendant, filed through counsel ACCRA Law Office an answer with compulsory
[3]
counterclaims and motion for leave to file third party complaint, impleading petitioner Air
Ads,Inc.andPioneerInsuranceandSuretyCorporation(Pioneer)asthirdpartydefendants.The
[4]
RTC admitted TADECOs third party complaint on April 14, 2000. On June 16, 2000,
however, ACCRA Law Office, upon realizing that Pioneer was a client of its Makati Office,
filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice to third party complaint only against Pioneer
[5]
InsuranceandSuretyCorporation.

Tendayslater,TADECOfiledthroughanothercounselDominguezPaderna&TanLaw
Offices(DominguezLawOffice)amotiontowithdrawnoticeofdismissalwithoutprejudiceof
third party complaint only against Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation or motion for
[6]
reconsideration, allegingthatthenoticeofdismissalwithoutprejudiceetc.filedbyACCRA
LawOfficehadbeenmadewithoutitsconsent.OnJune29,2000,theRTCgrantedthenoticeof
[7]
dismissalwithoutprejudiceetc.

Nearly a month later, the RTC also granted the motion to withdraw notice of dismissal
withoutprejudiceofthirdpartycomplaintonlyagainstPioneerInsurance&SuretyCorporation
ormotionforreconsideration, and set aside the dismissal of the third party complaint against
Pioneer.

Followingthegrantofitsmotiontowithdrawthenoticeofdismissaletc.,TADECO,still
throughDominguezLawOffice,filedamotiontoadmitthirdpartycomplaintinsubstitutionof
[8]
thethirdpartycomplaintfiledbythethirdpartyplaintiffsformercounsel, explainingthatthe
substitute third party complaint was being filed to avoid putting ACCRA Law Office in an
awkwardsituation,andtoavoidtheappearancethatnewcounselDominguezLawOfficewas
merelyadoptingthepreviousthirdpartycomplaint.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 2/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

Itisnotedthatthesubstitutethirdpartycomplaintcontainedallegationspertainingonlyto
Pioneerasthirdpartydefendant,towit:

xxx
5.UndertheheadingADMISSIONSoftheanswerofTADECOitalleged:

TADECOadmitstheallegationsinthefollowingparagraphsofthecomplaint:

xxxxxxxxxxxx

1.3 Paragraph 3 only in so far as it is alleged that TADECO is the owner of the
CESSNA 550 Citation jetplane and that the aircraft is duly registered with the Air
TransportationOffice.

6. The CESSNA 550 Citation jetplane, hereinafter referred to as the Citation jetplane, was
insured by PIONEER INSURANCE under Aircraft Insurance Policy No. AVHO9660014
effectiveDecember02,1996toDecember02,1997,acopyofwhichisattachedasAnnexCby
virtueofwhichPIONEERINSURANCEagreedtobeboundbythefollowingstipulation:
SECTIONIIThirdPartyLiability

The Company will indemnify the Assured for all sums which the Assured shall
becomelegallyliabletopayandshallpayascompensation,includingcostsawarded,
in respect of accidental bodily injury (fatal or nonfatal) or accidental damage to
property provided such injury or damage is caused directly by the Aircraft or by
objectsfallingtherefrom.

7. Should TADECO be found liable to the plaintiff under the complaint, the thirdparty
plaintiff is entitled to recover from PIONEER INSURANCE indemnification for its liability to
theplaintiff.

WHEREFORE,thethirdpartyplaintiffrespectfullypraysthatintheremoteprobabilitythat
TADECOwouldbeheldliabletotheplaintiffsunderthecomplaint,thatjudgmentberendered
orderingPioneerInsurancetoindemnifyTADECOallsumswhichthelattermaybefoundliable
totheplaintiffs.
[9]
xxx


On August 28, 2000, the RTC granted the motion to admit third party complaint in
[10]
substitution of the third party complaint filed by the third party plaintiffs former counsel,
viz:

The dismissal of defendant and Third Party PlaintiffsTagum Agricultural Development
Corporationcomplaintwaswithoutprejudice.Consideringfurtherthatthedismissalwasfiledby
its former counsel who is also the lawyer of Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, the
Motion to Admit Third Party complaint in substitution of the Third Party complaint that was
dismissedisherebygranted.
xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 3/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

SOORDERED.

[11]
AirAdsthenfiledamotiontodismissagainstthethirdpartycomplaint, averringthat
ithadbeendroppedasthirdpartydefendantunderTADECOssubstitutethirdpartycomplaint
and arguing that the filing of the substitute third party complaint had the effect of entirely
supersedingtheoriginalthirdpartycomplaint,whichshouldconsequentlybestrickenoutfrom
therecords.

TADECO, represented by ACCRA Law Office, countered that it had never been the
intentionofDominguezLawOfficetofileanewthirdpartycomplaintagainstAirAdsbecause
Dominguez Law Office represented TADECO only in regards to the third party complaint
[12]
againstPioneer.

[13]
OnJuly25,2002,theRTCdeniedAirAdsmotiontodismiss, holdingthatthenotice
ofdismissaletc.filedbyACCRALawOfficedidnothavetheeffectofdroppingAirAdsasa
third party defendant due to the notice of dismissal etc. being expressly restrictive about the
dismissalbeingonlywithrespecttoPioneer,towit:

xxx
Thefirst,thirdpartycomplaintasagainstAiradswasnotdismissedsothereisnoreasonto
grantAiradsMotiontoDismiss.

It shouldbeemphasized that the Notice of Dismissal filed by the former counselofthird
partyplaintiffwasrestrictivethatthedismissalwasitsthirdcomplaintagainstPioneeronly,Air
adsisstillathirdpartydefendantthereisnothingtoshowthatitwasdroppedasathirdparty
defendantbyvirtueofthesaiddismissal.

The motion that the first third party complaint filed by the former counsel of Tadeco be
removedfromtherecordanddeclaredasnolongerexistingandthatAiradsshouldnolongerbe
treatedasapartyiswithoutanylegalbasis.

InviewwhereoftheMotiontoDismissed[sic]isdeniedforlackofmerit.Airadsisgiven
ten(10)daysfromreceiptofthisordertofileitsanswer.

ThepretrialshallbeonSeptember18,2002.

Notifyallthepartiesofthisorder.

SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 4/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

[14]
Air Ads filed a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC denied the motion for
[15]
reconsiderationonSeptember20,2002, stating:

ThirdPartydefendantAirAdsMotionforReconsiderationisdeniedforlackofmerit.This
issuewasrepeatedlydiscussedbythepartiesintheirpleadingsandthecourtresolutiononthis
matterisclear.ThepretrialconferenceshallbeonOctober4,2002at2:30p.m.

SOORDERED.


[16]
AfterreceivingtheorderofdenialonOctober4,2002, AirAdsbroughtapetitionfor
[17]
certiorari and prohibition docketed in the CA (C.A.G.R. SP No. 73418). However, on
November 13, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to attach the board resolution
designating the petitioners duly authorized representative to sign the verification and
[18]
certificationagainstforumshoppinginitsbehalf.

Insteadoffilingamotionforreconsideration,AirAdsfiledanewpetitionforcertiorari
[19]
and prohibition on December 2, 2002 in the CA (C.A.G.R. SP No. 74152), already
includingtheproperboardcertificate.

WhileC.A.G.R.SPNo.74152waspending,theCAsresolutiondismissingC.A.G.R.SP
[20]
No.73418becamefinalandexecutoryonDecember10,2002.


On February 24, 2003, the CA issued the first assailed resolution in C.A.G.R. SP No.
[21]
74152, viz:

xxx
Petitioners reasoning is specious. The notice of dismissal clearly stated that the dismissal
pertainsonlytothethirdpartycomplaintagainstPioneerInsurance,notasagainstpetitionerAir
Ads. The thirdparty complaint against petitioner was never dismissed. Thus, when TADECOs
new counsel sought to revive the thirdparty complaint against Pioneer, the allegations in the
substitute thirdparty complaint pertain only to Pioneer since petitioner Air Ads was never
droppedasthirdpartydefendantintheproceedings.Petitionersmotiontodismisswascorrectly
deniedbythetrialcourt.

ACCORDINGLY,thepetitionisDENIEDduecourseandDISMISSED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 5/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

SOORDERED.

The CA denied Air Adss motion for reconsideration through the second assailed
[22]
resolutionofNovember13,2003.

Hence,thisappealbypetitionforreviewoncertiorari.

[23]
TADECO,throughACCRALawOffice,fileditscommentonMarch30,2004, buton
April 26, 2004, TADECO, through Dominguez Law Office, filed a motion to dispense with
comment of Tagum Agricultural Development Corporation as thirdparty plaintiff against
[24]
Pioneer Insurance Corporation. Accordingly, the Court directed TADECO to manifest
[25]
whichbetweenACCRALawOfficeandDominguezLawOfficewasitsprincipalcounsel.
Incompliance,TADECOmanifestedthatACCRALawOfficewasitscounselinCivilCaseNo.
278022000andinthethirdpartycomplaintagainstAirAds,whileDominguezLawOfficewas
[26]
itscounselinthethirdpartycomplaintagainstPioneer. AftertheCourtdirectedtheparties
[27]
to submit their respective memoranda, TADECO, through Dominguez Law Office and as
[28]
thirdparty plaintiff against Pioneer, filed a manifestation and motion, praying that it be
excused from filing a memorandum considering that Pioneer was not involved in the present
[29]
recourse.OnJune20,2005,theCourtgrantedthemanifestationandmotion.

Issues

Theissuestoberesolvedareasfollows:

I.
DOES THE FILING OF AN IDENTICAL PETITION FOLLOWING THE DISMISSAL OF
THE FIRST PETITION ON THE GROUND OF DEFECTIVE AND INSUFFICIENT
VERIFICATIONANDCERTIFICATIONCONSTITUTEFORUMSHOPPING?

II.
DOES A SUBSTITUTE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT HAVE THE EFFECT OF
SUPERSEDINGTHEORIGINALTHIRDPARTYCOMPLAINT?

Air Ads insists that the filing of the substitute third party complaint had the effect of
droppingitasthirdpartydefendantinCivilCaseNo.278022000andthatthesubstitutethird
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 6/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

partycomplaintsupersededtheoriginalthirdpartycomplaint.

Ontheotherhand,TADECOcountersthatthefilingofthesecondpetitionforcertiorari
andprohibitionintheCAviolatedtheruleagainstforumshoppingandwasalreadybarredby
resjudicataduetothedismissalofthefirstbeinganadjudicationonthemeritsandthatAirAds
continuedtobeathirdpartydefendantbecausethethirdpartycomplaintagainstAirAdshad
notbeenwithdrawnordismissed.

Ruling

Thepetitionforreviewlacksmerit.

I.
Refilingofthepetitionforcertiorarididnot
constituteforumshoppingorresjudicata

TADECOs contention, that Air Ads filing of the second petition while the first petition
wasstillpendingwasaclearcaseofforumshoppingandthat,accordingly,thesecondpetition
ofAirAdswasalreadybarredbyresjudicata due to the dismissal of the first petition having
[30]
resultedinanadjudicationuponthemerits,conformablywithDenosov.CourtofAppeals,
hasnosubstance.

ThedispositiveportionoftheCAsresolutionofNovember13,2002inC.A.G.R.SPNo.
73418,whichdismissedthefirstpetition,reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for defective and insufficient
verificationandcertificationagainstforumshopping.

SOORDERED.

Section5,Rule7ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,definestheeffectofthefailureto
complywiththerequirementsforthecertificationagainstforumshopping,viz:

Section5.Certificationagainstforumshopping.Theplaintifforprincipalpartyshallcertify
underoathinthecomplaintorotherinitiatorypleadingassertingaclaimforrelief,orinasworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasijudicialagencyand,tothebestofhisknowledge,nosuchotheractionorclaimispending
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 7/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

therein (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
statusthereofand(c)ifheshouldthereafterlearnthatthesameorsimilaractionorclaimhas
been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
whereinhisaforesaidcomplaintorinitiatorypleadinghasbeenfiled.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere
amendmentofthecomplaintorotherinitiatorypleadingbutshallbecauseforthedismissal
of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
The submission of a false certification or noncompliance with any of the undertakings therein
shallconstituteindirectcontemptofcourt,withoutprejudicetothecorrespondingadministrative
andcriminalactions.Iftheactsofthepartyorhiscounselclearlyconstitutewillfulanddeliberate
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
constitutedirectcontempt,aswellasacauseforadministrativesanctions.(n)

The first sentence of the second paragraph expressly provides that the dismissal of a
petition due to failure to comply with the requirements therein is without prejudice unless
otherwise provided by the court. Accordingly, the plaintiff or petitioner is not precluded from
filingasimilaractioninordertorectifythedefectinthecertificationwherethecourtstatesin
itsorderthattheactionisdismissedduetosuchdefect,unlessthecourtdirectsthatthedismissal
iswithprejudice,inwhichcasetheplaintiffisbarredfromfilingasimilaractionbyresjudicata.
Inthecontextoftheaforequotedrule,thedismissalofC.A.G.R.SPNo.73418,beingwithout
anyqualification,wasadismissalwithoutprejudice,plainlyindicatingthatAirAdscouldnotbe
barredfromfilingthesecondpetition.

TADECO cited Denoso v. Court of Appeals, supra, to buttress its contention that the
presentrecoursewasalreadybarredbyresjudicata.There,thepetitionershadfailedtoattach
thenecessarycopiesoftherelevantpleadingstotheirpetitionforcertiorari,therebycausingthe
dismissal of the petition. They had then sought reconsideration by submitting the omitted
documents,buttheCAdeniedtheirmotionforreconsideration.Onappeal,theCourtupheldthe
dismissal of the petition on the ground that it amounted to an adjudication upon the merits
[31]
pursuanttoSection3,Rule17oftheRulesofCourt, whichprovidesthatfailuretocomply
withtherulesshallresultinthedismissalthathastheeffectofanadjudicationuponthemerits.
Thelackofanyqualificationthatthedismissalofthepetitionwaswithoutprejudicerendered
thedismissalanadjudicationonthemerits.

Herein, however, Section 5 of Rule 7, supra, promulgated after the Denoso
pronouncement,providesthatthedismissalofthecase(is)withoutprejudice,unlessotherwise
[32]
provided.Inthisconnection,theaptprecedentisHeirsofJuanValdezv.CourtofAppeals,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 8/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

wheretherespondentcorporationfiledtwopetitionsforcertiorariintheCA,thefirstofwhich
wasdismissedwithoutprejudiceduetoinsufficientcertification.Afterreceivingtheresolution
dismissingthefirstpetition,therespondentcorporationrefileditspetition,whichwasdocketed
andraffledtoanotherdivisionoftheCA.Theissueofwhetherthefilingofthesecondpetition
constitutedforumshoppingreachedthisCourt,whichresolvedtheissuethuswise:

We have no doubt that it was within the CAs power and prerogative to issue what either
resolution decreed without committing an abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of
jurisdiction.InthefirstMay5,2003Resolution,theCAcorrectlydismissedthepetitionforthe
deficiency it found in the nonforum shopping certification. Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides that Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be
curablebymereamendmentofthecomplaintorotherinitiatorypleadingbutshallbecausefor
the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after
hearing. On the other hand, the requirement specific to petitions filed with the appellate court
simply provides as a penalty that the failure of the petitioner to comply with the listed
requirements,amongthemtheneedforacertificationagainstforumshopping,shallbesufficient
groundforthedismissalofthepetition.Thus,theNinthDivisioncorrectlydismissedthepetition
withoutprejudice.
xxx
The question of whether Lopez Resources forum shopped when it refiled its petition is
largely rendered moot and academic by the terms of the assailed May 5, 2003 order which
dismissed the case without prejudice. Lopez Resources, who cannot be blamed for the CAs
mistake, only followed what the assailed order allowed. Thus, we cannot say that it forum
shopped by filing another petition while the first petition was pending. Insofar as it was
concerned,itsfirstpetitionhadbeendismissedwithoutprejudicehence,therewasnobar,
eitherbywayofforumshopping,litispendentiaorresadjudicata,tothepetitionitrefiled.
[33]


Indeed,AirAdsoptionstocorrectitsdiresituationincludedtherefiling,for,althoughthe
RulesofCourtdeclaresthatthefailuretocomplywiththerequirementsofSection5ofRule7
shall not be cured by amendment, nowhere does the rule prohibit the filing of a similar
complaintorpleadingfollowingthedismissalwithoutqualificationoftheearlierone.

II.
Substitutethirdpartycomplaintdidnot
supersedeoriginalthirdpartycomplaint

The posture of Air Ads that the original third party complaint was automatically
[34]
expunged from the records upon the admission of the substitute third party complaint is
bereftofanybasisinfactandinlaw.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 9/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

Therecordsindicatethat:firstly,bothTADECOandPioneerwereclientsofACCRALaw
Officesecondly,TADECOengagedDominguezLawOfficeasitscounselinlieuofACCRA
Law Office with respect only to its third party complaint against Pioneer thirdly, the RTC
dismissedthethirdpartycomplaintonlyagainstPioneeruponthenoticeofwithdrawalfiledby
TADECOthroughACCRALawOfficeandfourthly,theRTCgrantedthemotiontoadmitthe
substitutethirdpartycomplaintonlyagainstPioneer.Theserendereditplainandclearthatthe
substitutethird party complaint merely replaced the third party complaint earlier filed against
Pioneer.

Air Ads urging that the filing of the substitute third party complaint effectively
superseded the third party complaint impleading it as third party defendant ostensibly harks
back to Section 8 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which states that the amended pleading
[35]
supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, the substitution of the third party
complaint could not produce the effect that an amendment of an existing pleading produces.
[36]
UnderSection1, Rule10oftheRulesofCourt,anamendmentisdonebyaddingorstriking
outanallegationorthenameofanyparty,orbycorrectingamistakeinthenameofapartyora
mistakenorinadequateallegationordescriptioninanyotherrespect.Aperusaloftheoriginal
andthesubstitutethirdpartycomplaintsshowsthattheiravermentsaresubstantiallythesame
andthatthesubstitutethirdpartycomplaintdidnotstrikeoutanyallegationofthepriorone.

Lastly,AirAdsattributeserrortotheCAandtheRTCfordisregardingthecaptionand
theallegationsofthesubstitutethirdpartycomplaintthatwouldhaveledthemtorulethatthe
originalthirdpartycomplaintwaseffectivelysupersededandsupplantedbythesubstitutethird
party complaint. It submits that substitution signifies to put in the place of another and
somethingthatisputinplaceofsomethingelseorisavailableforuseinsteadofsomethingelse.

Air Ads submission is flawed. It is not the caption of the pleading that determines the
[37]
nature of the complaint but rather its allegations. Although Air Ads observation that the
substitute third party complaint contained allegations only against Pioneer is correct, sight
shouldnotbelostofthefactthatDominguezLawOfficerepresentedTADECOinitsthirdparty
complaint only against Pioneer, which was precisely why the substitute third party complaint
referredonlytoPioneer.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 10/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

WHEREFORE,wedenythepetitionforreviewoncertiorari,andaffirmtheresolutions
theCourtofAppealspromulgatedonFebruary24,2003andNovember13,2003.

Costsagainstthepetitioner.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:


CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



ARTUROD.BRIONMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 11/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.3536pennedbyAssociateJusticeRubenT.Reyes(laterPresidingJustice,andMemberoftheCourt),andconcurredin
byAssociateJusticeRemediosSalazarFernandoandAssociateJusticeEdgardoF.Sundiam(deceased).
[2]
Id.,pp.3839pennedbyAssociateJusticeReyes,andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticeSalazarFernandoandAssociateJustice
Sundiam.
[3]
Rollo,pp.4257.
[4]
Id.,p.242.
[5]
Id.,pp.8990.
[6]
Id.,pp.9296.
[7]
Id.,p.246.
[8]
Id.,pp.97104.
[9]
Id.,pp.258259.
[10]
Id.,p.342.
[11]
Id.,pp.105109.
[12]
Id.,pp.110119.
[13]
Id.,pp.124125.
[14]
Id.,pp.127129.
[15]
Id.,p.137.
[16]
Id.,pp.138.
[17]
Id.,pp.374388.
[18]
Id.,p.390pennedbyAssociateJusticeSergioL.Pestao(retiredanddeceased),andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticeCancioC.
Garcia(laterPresidingJustice,andMemberoftheCourt,butalreadyretired)andAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.(retired).
[19]
Id.,pp.138153.
[20]
Id.,p.391.
[21]
Id.,pp.78.
[22]
Id.,pp.1415.
[23]
Id.,pp.171188.
[24]
Id.,pp.416422.
[25]
Id.,p.423.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 12/13
5/25/2017 G.R.No.160736

[26]
Id.,pp.424433.
[27]
Id.,pp.457458.
[28]
Id.,pp.497498.
[29]
Id.,pp.500501.
[30]
G.R.No.L32141,July29,1988,163SCRA683.
[31]
Section3.Failuretoprosecute.Ifplaintifffailstoappearatthetimeofthetrial,ortoprosecutehisactionforanunreasonable
lengthoftime,ortocomplywiththeserulesoranyorderofthecourt,theactionmaybedismisseduponthemotionofthedefendant
oruponthecourtsownmotion.Thisdismissalshallhavetheeffectofanadjudicationuponthemerits,unlessotherwiseprovidedby
thecourt.
[32]
G.R.No.163208,August13,2008,562SCRA89.
[33]
Id.(boldemphasissupplied)seealsoDevelopmentBankofthePhilippinesv.LaCampanaDevelopmentCorporation,G.R.No.
137694,January17,2005,448SCRA384.
[34]
Rollo,p.465.
[35]
Section8.Effectofamendedpleadings.Anamendedpleadingsupersedesthepleadingthatitamends.However,admissionsin
supersededpleadingsmaybereceivedinevidenceagainstthepleaderandclaimsordefensesallegedthereinnotincorporatedinthe
amendedpleadingshallbedeemedwaived.(n)
[36]
Section1.Amendmentsingeneral.Pleadingsmaybeamendedbyaddingorstrikingoutanallegationorthenameofanyparty,
orbycorrectingamistakeinthenameofapartyoramistakenorinadequateallegationordescriptioninanyotherrespect,sothatthe
actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
inexpensivemanner.
[37]
Anadonv.Herrera,G.R.No.159153,July9,2007,527SCRA90,97.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/160736.htm 13/13