558 Phil. 284
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
| Number of Shares |
| |
1. Rosario N. Arellano | 165 |
2. Victoria N. Legarda | 165 |
3. Angela N. Lobregat | 165 |
4. Pablo Lobregat (in trust for Rafael Valdez) | 165 |
5. Benito V. Nieto | 165 |
6. Carlos V. Nieto | 165 |
7. Manuel V. Nieto III | 165 |
8. Ramon V. Nieto | 165 |
9. Ma. Rita N. Delos Reyes | 165 |
10. Carmen N. Tuazon | 165 |
11. Rafael C. Valdez | 165 |
12. Andres L. Africa (in trust for Rosario Songco) | 1 |
13. Lourdes A. Africa (in trust for Nathalie A. Africa) | 165 |
14. Lourdes A. Africa (in trust for Jose Enrique A. Africa) | 165 |
15. Lourdes A. Africa (in trust for Paul Delfin A. Africa) | 165 |
16. Victor Africa | 165 |
17. Juan De Ocampo (in trust for Rosario A. Songco) | 1 |
18. Raquel S. Dinglasan | 332 |
19. Evelyn A. Romero | 332 |
20. Rosario Songco | 330 |
Defendant Andres L. Africa is now deceased. His heirs, all non-residents, are Perla Africa, Rolando Africa and Ronaldo "Ronnie" Africa. Their last known address is at No. 95-A Melchor Street, Loyola Heights, Quezon City.By Resolution of February 2, 2005,[11] the Sandiganbayan denied the Republic's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint for failure to properly set it for hearing.[12] The Republic's motion for reconsideration of the said resolution was denied by Resolution of May 3, 2005.[13]
Defendant Rosario A. Songco is now deceased. Her heirs and their addresses are the following:1) Enrico A. SongcoDefendant Racquel S. Dinglasan is a non-resident and holds an American passport. Her last known address is at #8 Eagle Street, Capitol Hills, Quezon City.
No. 77 Kaimito Street, Phase 2,
Town and Country Executive Village,
Antipolo City
2) Rosanna S. Salak
No. 8 Eagle Street, Capitol Hills,
Quezon City, or
Mekong Department
Asian Development Bank,
No. 6 ADB Avenue,
Mandaluyong City; and
3) Epitacio A. Songco, Jr.
10th Floor, Telecoms Plaza Bldg.
Makati City
Defendant Evelyn A. Romero is a non-resident and holds a Canadian passport. Her last known address is at #106 10th Avenue, Quezon City.[10]
By Resolution of November 15, 2005,[17] the Sandiganbayan denied the Republic's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint as follows:
- [The Republic] is aware of the leniency bestowed by [the Sandiganbayan] in granting [it] four (4) extensions of time in order to be able to properly file the Motion for Leave to file the Amended Complaint.
- With sincere apologies we again beseech [the Sandiganbayan] to grant [it] leave to file the Amended Complaint. [The Republic] insists on the inclusion of the additional defendants for they are considered as necessary parties without whom no complete relief can be afforded to the [Republic].
x x x x
- Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court further states that: x x x [p]arties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. x x x[16] (Underscoring supplied)
This present Motion was denied when it was first filed on 27 January 2005 because it was not set for hearing; the motion for reconsideration of the resolution denying it was also denied.The Republic's December 6, 2005 Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautela[18] having been denied by Resolution of March 6, 2006,[19] it filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Although parties may be dropped or added by order of the court, this can only be made in accordance with the Rules of Court. This brings us to the question of whether there is compliance with the procedures on how this is done. And while technicalities are brushed aside, this policy is not equivalent to allowing neglect or abuse of the rules by party litigants. Specifically on the single point of impleading the proper defendants for its case, plaintiff has managed to drag the case far too long as will be shown below.
x x x x
Plaintiff's first task of identifying the proper defending parties for its cause of action dates as far back as July of 1987 when it filed Civil Case No. 0009, but it failed to include the present defendants; up to 28 October 1997 when it filed the present complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 0178 again without properly including the proper parties; up to 28 October 2004 when it was given an extension of time to file its Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to implead the proper parties; up to 10 November 2004 when another extension of time was given for the same purpose; up to 16 December 2004 for yet another extension of time, and up to 5 January 2005 for the last extension of time accorded by this Court. When it finally filed the Motion for Leave on 27 January 2005, it was still not in conformity with the requirements of the Rules of Court.
Legal proceedings are directional in time advancing from the commencement of the action toward its conclusion and by no means going backwards. For those instances where modifications or corrections are allowed and liberality on technical rules is sanctioned, the Rules of Court still define the parameters under which these should be undertaken. Adherence to these guidelines is imperative, otherwise the proceedings could very well be taken for granted or be at the mercy of the party litigants.
The grant of leave to file amended pleadings is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the court. With the lame effort of the plaintiff in carrying out its task, the liberality with which this Court accommodated the same request a number of times, and this Court's earlier resolution already denying the same motion, plaintiff cannot now be heard on the same plea all over again. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It is clear that plaintiff x x x can amend its complaint once, as a matter of right, before a responsive pleading is filed. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the fact that Carissa had already filed its Answer did not bar private respondent from amending its original Complaint once, as a matter of right, against herein petitioners. Indeed, where some but not all the defendants have answered, plaintiffs may amend their Complaint once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely against the non-answering defendants, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)As the proposed amendments pertain only to the non-answering private respondents, they may still be made as a matter of right. Being a matter of right, its exercise does not depend upon the discretion or liberality of the Sandiganbayan.