NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTG.R. No. L-68636 February 29,1988
CRUZ, J.:
Civil Procedure
Facts:
It is contended that the respondent court erred in
limiting the refund to the amount specified by the petitioner in its
counterclaim. The trial court had allowed the refund in the sum of P526,280.53
on the justification that this had been established by the evidence adduced at
the trial. On appeal, however, the respondent court reversed, holding that this
refund should be limited to the sum of P31,652.62, which was the amount claimed
in the counterclaim.
Issue:
Whether or not the
respondent court erred in limiting the refund to the amount specified by the
petitioners in its counterclaim.
Held:.
The applicable rule is Rule 10, Section 5.
There have
been instances where the Court has held that even without the necessary
amendment, the amount proved at the trial may be validly awarded, as in Tuazon
v. Bolanos, where
we said that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that
asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where
defendant had himself raised the point on which recovery was based. The
appellate court could treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidence
although the pleadings were not actually amended. Amendment is also unnecessary
when only clerical errors or non-substantial matters are involved, as we held
in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Laguna. In Co
Tiamco v. Diaz, we
stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, particularly
where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. And in the recent
case of National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we
held that where there is a variance in the defendant's pleadings and the
evidence adduced by it at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as
amended to conform with the evidence.
It is the
view of the Court that pursuant to the above mentioned rule and in light of the
decisions cited, the trial court should not be precluded from awarding an
amount higher than that claimed in the pleadings notwithstanding the absence of
the required amendment. But this is upon the condition that the evidence of
such higher amount has been presented properly, with full opportunity on the
part of the opposing parties to support their respective contentions and to
refute each other's evidence.
0 Comments