This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As a matter of judicial policy, courts are impelled to treat motions for leave to file amended pleadings with liberality.[33] This is especially true when a motion for leave is filed during the early stages of proceedings or, at least, before trial.[34] Our case law had long taught that bona fide amendments to pleadings should be allowed in the interest of justice so that every case may, so far as possible, be determined on its real facts and the multiplicity of suits thus be prevented.[35] Hence, as long as it does not appear that the motion for leave was made with bad faith or with intent to delay the proceedings,[36] courts are justified to grant leave and allow the filing of an amended pleading. Once a court grants leave to file an amended pleading, the same becomes binding and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that the court had abused its discretion.[37] | |||||
|
2012-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It should be noted that respondents Lilian S. Soriano and the Estate of Leandro A. Soriano, Jr. already filed their Answer, to petitioners' complaint, and the claims being asserted were made against said parties. A responsive pleading having been filed, amendments to the complaint may, therefore, be made only by leave of court and no longer as a matter of right. However, in Tiu v. Philippine Bank of Communications,[4] the Court discussed this rule at length, to wit: x x x [A]fter petitioners have filed their answer, Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court specifically allows amendment by leave of court. The said Section states: | |||||