G.R. NO. 148280 - LORETA AGUSTIN CHONG, ALSO KNOWN AS LORETA GARCIA AGUSTIN, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PEDRO AND ROSITA DE GUZMAN AND FORTUNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered for [respondents] by dismissing the complaint and sentencing [petitioner] to pay the [respondents] P50,000.00 as moral damages plus P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus costs of suit. [9] Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed Decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, the instant petition. Petitioner raises four issues, to wit: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting respondent-spouses' amended answer in violation of Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, (2) whether petitioner was deprived of due process when during the pre-trial, respondent-spouses failed and refused to furnish her copies of the documents that they intended to present, in violation of Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, (3) whether the trial court erred in not finding that the Transfer of Rights and Assumption of Obligation dated January 30, 1984 was void or, in the alternative, unenforceable as against petitioner. Petitioner claims that the trial court erred in granting respondent-spouses' oral manifestation or motion for leave to file an amended answer. She argues that respondent-spouses should have filed a written motion for leave to file an amended answer, pursuant to Section 3, [10] Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. She argues that the purpose of the rule is to help the trial court determine whether the proposed amendments constitute substantial amendments to their original answer and whether the motion is intended to delay the proceedings, as well as to give the adverse party an opportunity to be heard. The contention lacks merit. The trial court allowed respondent-spouses to amend their answer after it observed that their original answer merely contained specific denials without clearly setting forth, as far as practicable, the truth of the matter upon which they rely to support such denial as required under Section 10, [11] Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Further, after denying the material allegations in the Complaint, respondent-spouses merely stated in their original answer that "[a]ll other arguments embodied in [their prior] motion to dismiss are reiterated as part of the special and affirmative defenses herein." [12] Under these conditions, the trial court justifiably deemed it necessary for respondent-spouses to amend their answer in order to sufficiently clarify the issues to be tried and thereby expedite the proceedings. In granting respondent-spouses' motion to file an amended answer, the trial court acted within its discretion pursuant to Section 2, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 2. Nature and purpose. The pre-trial is mandatory. The court shall consider: x x x x (c) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings; Trial court allowed the filing of an amended answer to avoid multiplicity of suits, to determine the real controversies between the parties and to decide the case on the merits without unnecessary delay, all o