ALPINE LENDING INVESTORS AND/OR ROGELIO L. ONG, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTRELLA CORPUZ, RESPONDENT.

Alpine Lending Investors versus Corpuz

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Alpine Lending Investors and Rogelio Ong against Estrella Corpuz. The dispute began as a complaint for replevin filed by Corpuz to recover her Toyota Tamaraw FX, which a former neighbor had taken from her and mortgaged to Alpine using a forged signature. But the question that reached the Supreme Court is procedural rather than proprietary: whether the trial court correctly admitted Corpuz's amended complaint. The case matters because it settles a rule every litigator must know — that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading, and so a plaintiff may still amend the complaint as a matter of right.

Procedural History

Corpuz filed her complaint for replevin with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, against Alpine and Zenaida Lipata. Instead of filing an answer, Alpine moved to dismiss on the ground that it is not a juridical person and therefore not a proper party. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss in an order dated September 2, 2002, and denied Alpine's motion for reconsideration. The trial court then directed Corpuz to file an amended complaint within ten days. Corpuz filed her amended complaint with a motion to admit two days late, but the trial court admitted it in an order dated December 13, 2002. Alpine then moved to expunge Corpuz's motion to admit on the ground that it carried no notice of hearing. The trial court denied that motion on January 24, 2003, and denied reconsideration on January 28, 2003. Alpine elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Zenaida Lipata was Corpuz's former neighbor. Pretending to help Corpuz secure a garage franchise from the Land Transportation Office, Zenaida took the original registration papers of Corpuz's Toyota Tamaraw FX. Using those papers and representing herself as the owner, Zenaida retrieved the vehicle from Richmond Auto Center, where it was being repaired, and then disappeared with it.

Corpuz reported the matter to the Land Transportation Office branch in Muntinlupa City. There she learned that Zenaida had mortgaged her vehicle with Alpine, and she was shown a chattel mortgage contract bearing her forged signature. Corpuz immediately informed Alpine of the spurious mortgage and demanded the release of her vehicle. Alpine promised to comply, but only on condition that Zenaida should first be charged criminally.

Corpuz then filed complaints for falsification of private document and estafa against Zenaida before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, and a warrant of arrest was eventually issued. Corpuz informed Alpine of these developments, but Alpine still refused to turn over the vehicle. Corpuz then filed the replevin complaint. Alpine responded not with an answer but with a motion to dismiss, asserting that it is not a juridical person and so not a proper party.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the respondent's amended complaint.
• Whether or not a motion to dismiss is a responsive pleading that would bar amendment of the complaint as a matter of right.
• Whether or not the respondent's motion to admit the amended complaint, filed without a notice of hearing, was defective.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

Section 1. Amendments in general. – Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking an allegation or the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.

This expresses the liberal policy behind amendments, which the Court invokes to sustain the admission of the amended complaint.

Section 2 of Rule 10 provides:

Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. – A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.

This is the pivotal provision: because no responsive pleading had been served, the respondent's right to amend was absolute.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the amended complaint. On the second issue, it held that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Section 2 of Rule 10. Since Alpine filed only a motion to dismiss and never an answer, no responsive pleading had been served, and Corpuz could therefore amend her complaint once as a matter of right. The Court stressed that because the right to amend existed, the trial court's duty to accept the amended complaint was purely ministerial; following its earlier ruling in Breslin versus Luzon Stevedoring, mandamus would lie against a court that refused. In fact, the Court observed, Corpuz need not have filed a motion to admit her amended complaint at all.

On the third issue, the objection that the motion to admit lacked a notice of hearing did not defeat the amended complaint, because the right to amend did not depend on that motion. The Court closed by reaffirming its settled policy of liberality in allowing amendments so that the real controversies may be presented and cases decided on the merits without delay.

Doctrine

A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Section 2 of Rule 10. Until a responsive pleading is served, a party may amend the pleading once as a matter of right, and the trial court has the ministerial duty to accept the amended complaint; refusal may be corrected by mandamus. The amendment as a matter of right does not require a motion to admit, and the absence of a notice of hearing on such a motion cannot defeat a right conferred by the Rules. Under Section 1 of Rule 10, amendments are to be liberally allowed so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the trial court's order admitting the amended complaint was affirmed, and costs were assessed against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading, so the right to amend once as a matter of right survives until an answer is served. Examiners use this case to test the interplay of Rule 10 and the motion to dismiss, and the ministerial duty of the court to admit the amended complaint.