Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SHOEMART v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 163109 2014-01-22	MARICHU G. EJERA v. BEAU HENRY L. MERTO BERSAMIN, J.
The insistence is not correct. The petitioner filed her supplemental complaint to assail Office Order No. 005, and thereby raised issues identical to those raised in her original complaint involving Office Order No. 008. Hence, the RTC could already resolve Paltinca's motion to dismiss even without first admitting the supplemental complaint. Unlike an amended complaint, her supplemental complaint could "exist side-by-side" with the original complaint, because the supplemental complaint averred facts supervening from the filing of the complaint.[51] Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides: Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the supplemental pleading.
	GR NO. 169551 2007-01-24	SPS. ORLANDO M. LAMBINO v. PRESIDING JUDGE CALLEJO, SR., J.
Sec. 6. Matters subject of supplemental pleadings. Upon motion of a party, the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party should plead thereto, it shall so order, specifying the time therefor. The rule is a useful device which enables the court to award complete relief in one action and to avoid the cost delay and waste of separate action.[27] Thus, a supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter.[28]
	GR No. 81024 2000-02-03	ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. CA PURISIMA, J.
Under the aforecited rule, a supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the original pleading and not to dispense with or substitute the latter.[25] It is not like an amended pleading which is a substitute for the original one. It does not supersede the original, but assumes that the original pleading is to stand. The issues joined under the original pleading remain as issues to be tried in the action.[26]