SPOUSES
ORLANDO M. LAMBINO LAMBINOv. HON. PRESIDING JUDGED
G.R. NO.
169551 : January 24, 2007CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
Facts:
The trial court issued an Orderdenying the
motion of petitioners in its finding that the alleged escalating and arbitrary
rate of interest and other charges imposed by private respondent had accrued
long before the complaint was filed. It held that under Section 6, Rule 10 of
the Revised Rules of Court, only transactions, occurrences, or events which
accrued after the date of the complaint may be set forth in the supplemental
complaint.
Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Order, alleging therein that the escalating, arbitrary
rate of interest, and other charges referred to under paragraphs III, IV and V
of their supplemental complaint took place after the filing of their complaint.
They insist that it was discovered for the
first time only after they had been furnished with the statements of account by
defendant during pretrial.
However, on January 2, 2001, the court issued
an Order denying
the motion of petitioners.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with
the CA seeking to nullify the Orders of the RTC. They alleged that the RTC
committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in issuing the Orders.
On March 7, 2005, the CA rendered judgment
dismissing the petition.
Issue:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO ADMIT SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT UNDER
SEC. 6, RULE 10, REVISED RULES OF COURT.
Held:
The admission or non-admission of a supplemental
pleading is not a matter of right but is discretionary on the court.Among
the factors that the court will consider are: (1) resulting prejudice to the
parties; and (2) whether the movant would be prejudiced if the supplemental
pleading were to be denied. What constitutes prejudice to the opposing party
depends upon the particular circumstance of each case. An opposing party who
has had notice of the general nature of the claim or matter asserted in the
supplemental pleading from the beginning of the action will not be prejudiced
by the granting of leave to file a supplemental pleading. A motion for leave to
file a supplemental pleading may be denied if he is guilty of undue delay or
laches which causes substantial prejudice to the opposing party.
0 Comments