This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-08-09 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners asseverate that in the interest of justice, and in consonance with the spirit of the law, amendments to pleadings are allowed at any stage of the action to avoid multiplicity of suits and, more importantly, to accord the parties to present the real controversy for the proper determination of the parties' rights and the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay. Moreover, they point that in a line of cases, this Court had favored amendments to pleadings, as the rules on them, which are permissive in character, are liberally construed without regard to technicalities.[33] Petitioners rely on Sedeco v. Court of Appeals[34] and Paman v. Diaz[35] which applied the liberality of the rules as regards admittance of amendments, and Marini-Gonzales v. Lood[36] where we allowed admittance of amendments to the pleading despite the result that it substantially altered the theory of the case, in furtherance of justice. Finally, petitioners argue that the amended complaint will not prejudice nor place respondents at a disadvantage as they will be accorded time to answer the amended complaint, and thus can prepare sufficiently for trial considering that the trial proper has not yet commenced. | |||||