G.R. No. 120384 - PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION, VS. PHILIPPINE INFRASTRUCTURES, INC., PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE CO., INC., THE SOLID GUARANTY, INC., B.F. HOMES, INC., PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND TOMAS F. AGUIRRE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, the defendants should be held liable, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff attorneys fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of P2,000,000.00 or about ten (10%) percent of the guaranteed obligations. . . . PRAYER . . . (a) Ordering defendant PII, BF Homes, PILAR and AGUIRRE to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of P19,035,256.57 plus P351,517.57 extension guarantee fees and amendment fees , plus interests and penalty charges thereon; . . . [7] Acting on the motion to amend, the trial court, at that time presided by Judge Joselito J. Dela Rosa, issued the assailed Order dated December 7, 1992, [8] dismissing the case without prejudice on the ground of failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, thus in effect, reversing the Order dated June 10, 1987 issued by Judge Lagman five years earlier. Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was denied by Judge de la Rosa per his Order [9] dated April 12, 1993. On June 9, 1993, a petition for review on certiorari was filed by petitioner against the Regional Trial Court with this Court. On June 23, 1993, the Court issued a Resolution [10] which reads: Considering that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Intermediate Appellate Court (Court of Appeals) now exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, the Court Resolved to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals, for disposition. The Court of Appeals re-docketed the petition as CA-G.R. SP No. 31483. On August 31, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed Decision, dismissing the petition on the following grounds: FIRSTLY, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order. If it is erroneous, the remedy of the aggrieved party is appeal. Hence, the same cannot be assailed by certiorari, as in this case (Marahay vs. Malicor, 181 SCRA 811). Considering the Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90, paragraph 4 regarding an appeal by wrong mode, the order of dismissal in this case was therefore correctly issued by the respondent court a quo . SECONDLY, the real purpose of petitioner herein in asking the respondent court a quo for leave to amend its complaint was not ostensibly to make the complaint conform to the evidence presented, as petitioner alleges, but to introduce a cause of action then non-existing when the complaint was filed. The ruling in the leading case of Surigao Mine Exploration Co. vs. Harris (69 Phil. 113) does not allow such amendment. Hence, the trial court was correct in denying the amendment and instead it dismissed the case. THIRDLY, in the case at bar, the motion to dismiss was first denied but there is nothing in the Rules of Court which prohibits the court from later on reversing itself and granting the motion to dismiss. This ruling is supported by earlier decisions of the Supreme C