Republic of the Philippine
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 62, Antipolo
ABC TRADING INC., Civil Case No.1234
Plaintiff For: Collection of a Sum of Money
versus
BCD PARTNERSHIP,
Defendant
X----------------------------------------X
COMMENT
Defendant, thru the undersigned counsel, unto this honorable court, respectfully states the
following, to wit;
1. That, upon verbal order of Presiding Judge, acting on the motion of plaintiff, with leave
of court, amendments of the latter’s complaint pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 10 of the
Rules of Court that, provides:
“Except as provided in the next preceding Section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave shall be
refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to
delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading stated no cause of
action from the beginning which could be amended.
Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this Section shall be
made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and
an opportunity to be heard”;
2. That, defendant find the motion barred due to procedural defects, under Section 5 of
Rule 10, of the Rules of Court which explicitly provide that:
“No amendment necessary to conform to or authorize presentation of
evidence. When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express
or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if
they had been raised in the pleadings. No amendment of such pleadings
deemed amended is necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence”;
3. That, clearly plaintiff’s intention to amend the original complaint filed was to conform
to the additional evidence attach to the amended pleading, after the former received the
answer to the original complaint submitted by the defendant, in which case, under the
rules of court, no amendment of such pleadings deemed amended is necessary to
cause them to conform to the evidence.
4. That, amendments in general, pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an
allegation or the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party
or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description in any other respect, so that the
actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to
technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner (Section 1, Rule 10,
Rule 10, of the Rules of Court);
5. That, based on the foregoing procedural prohibition as regards to the instant motion of
the plaintiff to amend their original complaint, defendant hereby opposed on the ground
that the former wanted to conform to the new evidence to defeat the merits of the
answer submit by the latter. Moreover, it is unjustified that the mistake and/or
inadequate allegation that was omitted by the plaintiff noted after receipt of the answer,
erroneous to assert that the omission was noted after a certain period of time and after
a responsive pleading had been submitted. Furthermore, defendant find the
amendments of the plaintiff not consistent to the procedural rule it tends to deny the
right to due process on the part of the defendant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the motion with leave of
court to amend the original complaint of the plaintiff be denied on the ground that such
motion is prohibited under the Rules of Court, and will totally deny the right of the
defendant to due process of law.
Done this 23rd day of October 2020, herein Quezon City, Metro Manila,
Philippines.
ATTY. JEANBERT MALANG
Counsel of the Defendant
No.123 Ilang-ilang Street,
Barangay Hindi Makita,
Quezon City.
IBP No. 123456; 04/9/19-Quezon City
PTR No. 1234567; 04/9/19-Quezon City
Roll No. 12345; 05/09/12
No. I -00123; 05/09/09
MCL No. II-00456; 05/09/09
