LEGASPI OIL CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, AS JUDGE OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, R. J. DEL PAN & CO., INC., AND LIBERATION STEAMSHIP CO., INC., RES…

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

On November 5, 1964,
R. J. del Pan & Co., Inc., filed^[1] a
complaint in the City Court of Manila – docketed therein as Civil Case No.
128693 – against the Liberation Steamship Co., Inc., for the recovery of a sum
of money for services rendered to the latter. 
On August 13, 1965,
the City Court of Manila rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendant.

The defendant Liberation Steamship Co., Inc. appealed to the
Court of First Instance of Manila – docketed therein as Civil Case No. 62830 –
and was assigned to Branch XII, presided over by Judge Francisco Geronimo.  Thereafter, a trial de novo was held.^[2]
After the plaintiff R. J. del Pan & Co., Inc. had offered its evidence, the defendant Liberation Steamship Co., Inc.
presented its accountant as a witness, who testified that according to a
“Booking Agreement” between the Liberation Steamship Co., Inc. and
the Legaspi Oil Co., Inc., the latter, as shipper, is
liable for the payment of the services subject of the plaintiff’s claim.

In view of the testimony of defendant’s witness, Judge Francisco
Geronimo on August 10, 1967
ordered the plaintiff R. J. del Pan & Co., Inc. to
amend its complaint by including the Legaspi Oil Co.,
Inc. as a defendant.^[3]     In compliance with the said order, the
plaintiff filed, on August 24, 1967,
an amended complaint^[4] impleading the Legaspi Oil Co.,
Inc. as a party defendant.

Instead of filing an answer, the Legaspi
Oil Co., Inc. filed a motion to dismiss^[5]
the amended complaint as against it, which Judge Francisco Geronimo, however,
denied in his order, dated September
23, 1967.^[6]

Without filing a motion to reconsider the aforesaid order, the Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. filed with this Court the instant
petition, claiming that respondent Judge Geronimo acted in excess of his
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of dis­cretion in denying its motion to
dismiss, and that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.

This Court gave due course to the petition, and in due time, the
private respondents filed their respective answers.  After the parties had submitted their
memoranda, the case was deemed submitted for decision.

The principal issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether
or not respondent Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

The instant petition is meritorious.

We agree with the petitioner’s contention that in case of an
appeal from an inferior court to a Court of First Instance, the latter court
cannot in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction bring in a new party for
the first time on appeal.

Under Rule 40, Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, upon the
docketing of the appeal, the pleadings filed in the justice of the peace or
municipal court are deemed reproduced in the Court of First Instance.  Although the parties may, if they so desire,
file amended or new pleadings, nevertheless, they cannot in their amended or
new pleadings change the nature of the cause of action and defenses that have
been pleaded in the inferior court or add new ones.  Thus, as was held by this Court, in cases
appealed from an inferior court to a Court of First Instance the parties can
neither change the cause of action or defenses they have pleaded in the
inferior court nor add new ones in their pleadings even if the case is to be
tried de novo.^[7]

In the present case, it is to be noted that the only parties in
the City Court of Manila were the plaintiff R. J. del Pan
& Co., Inc. and the defendant Liberation Steamship Co., Inc.  The petitioner Legaspi
Oil Co., Inc. was not a party to the case when it was tried and decided by the
said court.  When the complaint
originally filed therein, which is deemed to have been reproduced in the Court
of First Instance, was amended by the plaintiff, impleading
the petitioner Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. as a party
defendant and alleging that either the latter or the defend­ant Liberation
Steamship Co., Inc. is liable for the payment of the services subject of the
complaint, it had in effect alleged a new cause of action not set up in the
City Court of Manila and changed its theory of the case as tried and decided by
the inferior court.  Such amendment
cannot be done for the first time on appeal in the Court of First Instance of
Manila under the aforestated principle that in cases
appealed from an inferior court to a Court of First Instance the parties cannot
change the cause of action or defenses they have pleaded in the inferior court,
or add new ones.^[8]
Moreover, when the respondent Judge ordered the plaintiff to amend its
complaint, the latter had already rested its case and the defendant had already
started presenting its evidence.  At that
stage of the proceedings, it is no longer proper or advisable to implead the petitioner Legaspi
Oil Co., Inc. as a new defendant, which is neither an indispensable party nor
even a necessary party insofar as the plaintiff is concerned.

Upon the foregoing, We hold that
respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the plaintiff
to amend its complaint by impleading the petitioner Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. as party defendant and in denying its
motion to dismiss the amended complaint as against it.

As to the respondents’ contention that certiorari will not
lie in the present case because the petitioner failed to file a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying its motion to dismiss, it suffices to
state that when the questions raised before this Court are the same as those
which were squarely raised in and passed upon by the court below — as in the
present case — the filing of a motion for reconsideration is no longer a prerequisite.^[9]

ACCORDINGLY, the writ prayed for is granted and the orders
of respondent Judge dated August 10,
1967 and Sept­ember 23,
1967, are hereby annuled and set
aside.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, and Martin, JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., see concurring opinion.

Aquino, J., no part.

^[1]
Annex “A “, p. 9, Rollo.

^[2]
The case was tried before Republic Act No. 6031, which took effect on August 4, 1969, amending Section 45 of
the Judiciary Act (Republic Act 269).

^[3]
Annex “B”, p. 12, Rollo.

^[4]
Annex “C “, p. 13, Rollo.

^[5]
Annex “D”, p. 17, Rollo.

^[6]
Annex “E”, p. 20, Rollo.

^[7] Malinao vs.
Bocar, et al., 91 Phil. 536.

^[8]
See also Yu Lay vs. Galmes, 40 Phil. 650, and
cases therein cited; Zambales Chromite
Mining Co. vs. Robles, L-16182, August
29, 1961, 2 SCRA 1051.

^[9]
Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. vs. Ruiz, et al., L-32409, Feb. 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 823, 836,
citing Pajo, etc., et al. vs. Ago, et al., 108
Phil. 905