EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUDGE WENCESLAO L. FERNAN, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On
September 24, 1957 respondent Ceferino de los Santos, Jr. brought an
action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo (Civil Case No. 4392)
against Ricardo Yap Ladrido and Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr.—the latter in
his personal capacity as well as in his capacity as President of the
Nacionalista Party—to secure judgment restraining Ladrido from using in
his election campaign posters the words “Official Candidate,
Nacionalista Party” and from claiming the right to the election
inspectors in the Fourth Congressional District of Iloilo, and to
restrain Rodriguez from allowing Ladrido to continue holding himself as
the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party for said congressional
district. The complaint filed also sought to recover damages of
different kinds amounting to a total of more than P500,000.

Herein
petitioner, after being summoned, filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over his
person and over the subject matter of the action, and on the further
ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause of action. Inasmuch as before said motion could be resolved the
elections were held on November 11, 1957, petitioner filed a
supplemental motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
issue involved therein had become moot. This motion was denied by the
Court for the reason that the complaint also sought to recover damages.

Subsequently,
petitioner filed a second motion to dismiss on the ground that the
plaintiff in the case had not paid in full the docketing fees. Before
ruling on this motion the court ordered the clerk of court to fix or
assess the docket fees due from the plaintiff in the case, and on
February 25, 1958 said court officer assessed the fees in the sum of
P50.00. Petitioner contested this assessment and, subsequently, on the
basis of Opinion No. 316, Series of 1956, rendered by the Department of
Justice, the court made a new assessment requiring the plaintiff in the
case to pay the sum of P485.00 as docket fees. Instead of paying this
increased amount, however, said plaintiff filed a motion for the
admission of an amended complaint in which the damages specifically
claimed amounted only to P70,000.00. Petitioner objected to the
admission of said amended complaint on the ground that, as the
plaintiff had not paid in full the docket fees due upon the original
complaint, the case should be dismissed. The court over-ruled this
objection and admitted the amended complaint. Thereupon the present
action for prohibition was filed against Ceferino de los Santos, Jr.,
plaintiff in the above-mentioned civil case, and against the Hon. Judge
Wenceslao L. Fernan.

Upon the undisputed facts above stated, the writ should be denied.

At
the time the amended complaint was filed and submitted to the court for
admission, the defendant in the action had not yet filed his answer.
Consequently, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1, Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court, the plaintiff could amend his complaint “as a matter of
course”.

Upon the other hand, that the court presided by the
respondent judge had jurisdiction over the matter of allowing or not
allowing amendments to pleadings filed in an action before it can
hardly be doubted. Any error committed by it in this connection would
constitute mere error of judgment—which may be corrected only by appeal.

For the reasons above stated, the writ is denied, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes. J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, and De Leon, JJ., concur.