Case Digest: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANDRES L. AFRICA, et al.

Case Digest: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANDRES L. AFRICA, et al.

                      The Presidential Commission on Good Government filed a complaint for the recovery of shares of stock that were allegedly registered under the names of Andres Africa, et al. All the respondents answered the Complaint, except for Andres Africa, Racquel S. Dinglasan, Evelyn A. Romero, and Rosario Songco. Unfortunately, Africa and Songco died. The Republic filed an amended complaint to implead the heirs of Africa and Songco, and to properly summon Racquel S. Dinglasan and Evelyn A. Romero. By Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied the Republic‘s Motion for failure to properly set it for hearing. Another Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint was filed. The same however was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in assuming that the case at bar falls under Section 3 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court (amendments by leave of court)

HELD:

Under Section 2 of Rule 10, a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served, and thereafter, only upon leave of court. It is true that when the Republic filed its Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint most of the private respondents had already filed their respective answers. This does not bar the Republic from amending its original Complaint once, however, as a matter of right, against Andres L. Africa, Racquel S. Dinglasan, Evelyn A. Romero, and Rosario Songco, the non-answering private respondents.

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. In fine, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it denied the Republic‘s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.