G & L ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON.SEVERINO B. DE CASTRO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 82, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, AND AUTOM…

G and L Associated Brokerage versus De Castro

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, brought by G and L Associated Brokerage against Judge Severino De Castro of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and Automax Trans System Corporation. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to annul the trial court's orders refusing to allow an amended complaint and directing the continuation of the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows the Supreme Court insisting that a party who seeks to amend a pleading after the defendant has already answered must first secure leave of court, and that the denial of such leave is not a grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari where the trial court acted within its sound judgment.

Procedural History

G and L Associated Brokerage filed a complaint for specific performance with damages against Automax Trans System Corporation before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82, presided over by Judge Severino De Castro. After the defendant had answered, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The trial court denied the motion for lack of merit and, conformably with its earlier order, directed that the continuation of the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence proceed as scheduled. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the trial court likewise denied. The plaintiff then came directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and a restraining order under Rule 58, seeking to annul and set aside both orders.

Facts

On the thirteenth of February, nineteen hundred ninety-seven, G and L Associated Brokerage and Automax Trans System Corporation entered into an agreement. Under that agreement, and in consideration of two trade items delivered by the petitioner, the private respondent undertook certain obligations. When a dispute later arose over that agreement, the petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance with damages on the fourteenth of April, nineteen hundred ninety-nine.

The case was assigned to Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, presided over by Judge Severino De Castro. The defendant filed its answer. Only after the answer had been filed did the plaintiff seek to amend its complaint, filing a motion for leave to do so dated the thirtieth of January, two thousand three.

The trial court denied that motion for lack of merit. It then ordered, conformably with its earlier order of the eighteenth of February, two thousand three, that the continuation of the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence proceed as scheduled. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, and the petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint after the defendant had already answered.
• Whether or not the denial of leave to amend, and the order directing the continuation of the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence, may be annulled and set aside by certiorari under Rule 65.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the petition, which is the extraordinary remedy of certiorari invoked to annul the orders of the trial court:

When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioner must show grave abuse of discretion, and the absence of appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, before the Court may annul the trial court's orders.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff sought to amend only after the defendant had already answered, and the Rules require that leave of court be obtained in that situation. The trial court examined the motion and found it without merit, and the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb that exercise of judgment.

On the second issue, the Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie where the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and did not gravely abuse its discretion. The denial of leave to amend and the order directing the continuation of the presentation of evidence were interlocutory orders issued in the regular course of the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when in complete accord with those of the lower court, are generally binding, and that the general rule admits of exceptions only where there is grave abuse of discretion, speculation, surmise, or conjecture, a manifestly mistaken inference, a misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, or an overlooking of relevant facts. The Court found a hiatus of evidence showing that the case fell within any of those exceptions.

The Court thus affirmed the assailed decision and order of the trial court in toto, and denied the petition for evident lack of merit.

Doctrine

A party who seeks to amend a pleading after the defendant has already answered must first secure leave of court, and the grant or denial of that leave rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. The denial of leave to amend is an interlocutory order that will not be disturbed by certiorari absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only where the tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and where there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when in complete accord with those of the lower court, are generally binding on the Supreme Court and will not be reviewed except upon a showing that the case falls within the recognized exceptions.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the assailed decision and order of the trial court in toto, so the private respondent prevailed and the trial court's denial of leave to amend stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: after the defendant has answered, no amended complaint may be filed without leave of court, and the denial of that leave is not correctible by certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of Rule 65 and the rule on amendments to pleadings as a matter of right versus leave of court.