RULE 10

AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Section 1. 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, in
the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. (1a)

NOTES:

Amendment of pleading refers to the process of making changes or alterations therein.

As stated in the rules, pleadings are amended by (1) adding or striking out an allegation or the name of
any party, (2) by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or (3) a mistaken or inadequate allegation or
description in any other respect.

Amendments are allowed so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily be determined,
without regard to technicalities, in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.

Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his pleading once as a
matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at
any time within ten (10) calendar days after it is served.

NOTES:

As stated in the rules, a party may amend his pleadings:

i) Once as a matter of right, or

ii) At any time before a responsive pleading is served.

Verily, the plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of right if the defendant has not yet served his
answer thereto. And this rule holds true even if the defendant has already filed a motion to dismiss
because a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading (Paeste vs. Jaurigue, 94 Phil. 179; Bautista vs.
Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc., 476 SCRA 416), or even if such motion to dismiss has already been submitted
for resolution (Republic vs. Ilao, L-16667, Jan. 30, 1962), or even where such motion to dismiss has
already been granted by the court for as long as the amended pleading is filed before such order of
dismissal attained finality (Dauden Hernandez vs. De los Angeles, 27 SCRA 1277; Bautista vs. Maya-
Maya Cottages, Inc., supra).

But the plaintiff cannot, as a matter of right, amend his complaint for the second time even if the
defendant has not filed his answer to the complaint. If the plaintiff wants to amend his complaint for the
second time, he needs to obtain a leave of court.
Likewise, where the defendant has already filed an answer, plaintiff needs to obtain leave of court before
amending his complaint even if such purported amendment is to be done for the first time.

The foregoing rules equally applies to the defendant. The defendant can amend his answer once as a
matter of right before the filing by the plaintiff of a reply. But if the defendant wishes to amend his answer
for the second time, he needs to obtain leave of court to be able to do that even if the plaintiff has not yet
filed a reply. Defendant likewise needs a leave of court to amend his answer where the plaintiff has
already filed a reply even if such purported amendment is to be done for the first time.

As for a reply, the plaintiff can amend the same as a matter of right, at any time within ten (10) calendar
days after it is served. After that 10-day period, the reply may be amended but only upon leave of court.

OBSERVATION:

Take note, however, that under Section 10, Rule 6 of the Amended Rules the defendant is allowed to file a
rejoinder if an actionable document is attached to plaintiff’s reply. So, it is submitted that the plaintiff
cannot amend his reply as a matter of right, or that he needs leave of court so to amend his reply, if the
defendant has already submitted a rejoinder within the ten-day period from the time of the filing of such
reply.

By inadvertence or otherwise, the Amended Rules is also silent as to the amendment of a rejoinder. So, it
is submitted that such rejoinder may likewise be amended as a matter of right within 10 calendar days
from the time it is served. After such ten-day period, the rejoinder may be amended but only upon leave
of court.

Section 3. Amendments by leave of court. — 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. (3a)

NOTES:

It is important to know whether the purported amendment of pleading is a matter of right or not.

Where the amendment of the pleading is a matter of right, the pleader may introduce substantial
amendments to his pleading – like introducing a new cause of action or a defense, or changing the theory
of the case – WITHOUT NEED OF LEAVE OR COURT, and this he can do even if the purpose of such
purported amendment is to confer jurisdiction on the court, or to introduce a cause of action even where
none actually existed at all at the time of the filing of the pleading sought be amended.
On the other hand, where the amendment is not a matter of right, then 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.

Example # 1:

A case for forcible entry is filed with the Regional Trial Court (which has no original
jurisdiction over the case), involving a real property, the assessed value of which is, say,
Php 500,000.00 . The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC
has no jurisdiction over the case. Without waiting for the resolution of the motion to
dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which transformed the action for
forcible entry into an action for quieting of title which falls under the jurisdiction of the
RTC (given the assessed value of the property).

Q: Is the amendment allowed?

A: Yes, because it is a matter of right. The defendant has not yet filed a responsive
pleading. Motion to Dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Here, the admission of the
amended pleading is a ministerial duty of the court. It requires no positive action from
the court. Since it would not be acting in this regard, it could not be deemed as acting
without jurisdiction (see Gumabay vs. Baralin, 77 SCRA 258; Rosario vs. Carandang, 96
Phil. 845).

Example # 2:

A case for recovery of unpaid rentals is filed with the Municipal Trial Court, where the
amount demanded is Php 700,000.00. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the amount demanded exceeds the jurisdictional amount of the MTC.
Before any action could be taken on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff amended the
complaint to make it an action for unlawful detainer with prayer for payment of back
rentals.

Q: Is the amendment allowed?

A: Yes, because it is a matter of right. The defendant has not yet filed a responsive
pleading. Motion to Dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Here, the admission of the
amended pleading is a ministerial duty of the court. It requires no positive action from
the court. Since it would not be acting in this regard, it could not be deemed as acting
without jurisdiction (see Soledad vs. Mamangun, 8 SCRA 110).

Example # 3:

An action is filed for collection of an alleged unpaid loan. When the complaint was filed
the promissory note upon which the cause of action is based has not yet actually
matured. Before the defendant, however, could file his answer to the complaint, the
promissory note fell due and, realizing the pitfall of the original complaint, the plaintiff
 hastily amended the complaint to state therein that the promissory note which served
as the foundation of his complainant has already fell due.

Q: Is the amendment allowed?

A: Yes, because it is a matter of right. The defendant has not yet filed a responsive
pleading.
(apply by deductive reasoning the ruling in Swagman Hotels And Travel Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, 455 SCRA 175; Surigao Mines Exploration Co. Harris, 68 Phils. 13).

NOTE, HOWEVER, that, if in the above three (3) examples, the defendant in the pertinent action had
already filed an answer before the plaintiff could amend the complaint, such amendment could not
anymore be done as a matter of right, and that even if the plaintiff sought for a leave of court before
amending the complaint, such leave of court SHOULD BE REFUSED by the court, pursuant to Section 3,
Rule 10 of the Amended Rules. The amendment, this time, would require leave of court, a matter which
requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The exercise of this discretion requires the performance
of a positive act by the court. If it grants the amendment, it would be acting on a complaint over which it
has no jurisdiction. Its action, therefore, would be one performed without jurisdiction. The remedy of the
plaintiff, if he wants to really pursue with the case, is not to amend the complaint but to WITHDRAW the
same, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 17 of the Amended Rules, and thereafter file a NEW or DISTINCT
COMPLAINT, but the docket fees that he had already paid in filing the original/defective complaint would
already be forfeited.

It should be stressed, however, that under Section 3, Rule 10 of the amended rules, substantial
amendments may still be allowed even after a responsive pleading is filed, provided by that such is done
WITH PRIOR LEAVE OF COURT and provided, further, that such amendments after the filing of the
responsive pleading is not for the purpose of delay, or to confer jurisdiction on the court, or to introduce a
cause of action where none existed at all at the time of the filing of the pleading sought be amended, as
discussed hereinbefore.

Conversely, substantial amendments may, by leave of court, be allowed to be introduced to the complaint
even if the defendant has already filed an answer, if the purpose of the amendment is to correct a defect
in the allegation of the original complaint because, as it then stood, it failed to state a cause of action (as
differentiated from lack of cause of action).

Example:

An action for collection of an unpaid loan is filed in court. At the time of the filing of the
complaint the promissory note had already matured, but the complaint failed to state,
however, that plaintiff already made a demand upon the defendant to pay. Defendant
had already filed his answer to the complaint. Then, subsequently, plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend the complaint, attaching thereto the amended complaint
wherein he incorporated a new allegation, stating that he had actually made a demand
upon the defendant to pay.

Q: Is that amendment substantial?

A: Yes.
 Q: Should the amendment be thus refused?
A: No, the amendment should be allowed because at the time of the filing thereof, the
cause of action had already accrued, and the amendment is merely intended to correct
an allegation in the complaint which, by inadvertence or otherwise, nonetheless failed
to state a cause of action (Tamayo vs. San Miguel Brewery, 10 SCRA 115).

Q: Suppose, in the above problem, the promissory note had not yet matured when the
complaint was filed, and that it only matured after the defendant had already filed an
answer to the complaint. Is that curable by amendment of the complaint?
A: No, because, no cause of action ever existed at all then the original complaint was
filed and defendant had already filed an answer to the original complaint; hence,
amendment of the complaint is no longer a matter of right (Swagman Hotels And
Travel Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 455 SCRA 175; Surigao Mines Exploration Co. Harris,
68 Phils. 13).

Similarly, amendment may be allowed by the court even after the defendant had already filed an answer
if the purpose of such amendment is to include an omitted allegation regarding compliance of the earnest
effort toward a compromise agreement in a suit involving family members -- where such was really had
(Versoza vs. Versoza, 26 SCRA 78).

In other words, even after a responsive pleading had already been filed, the court may, upon motion,
grant leave to allow a substantial amendment for as long the same is not made with intent to delay the
proceedings and provided that is not for the purpose if the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the court,
or to introduce a cause of action where none existed at all at the time of the filing of the pleading sought
be amended.

In actual practice, the amended pleading is ordinarily attached to the motion for leave to admit the
original pleading.

Section 4. Formal amendments. — A defect in the designation of the parties and other
clearly clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any
stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to
the adverse party. (4)

NOTES:

Unlike substantial amendments, a formal amendment may be done at any stage of action – before or
even after the filing of a responsive pleading, or during the pendency of the action – and this may be done
summarily by the court, at its own initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the
parties.
Verily, an amendment from sole proprietorship to name of owner is a mere formal amendment and
should thus be allowed (Juasing Hardware vs. Mendoza, 115 SCRA 783).

Section 5. 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. (5a)

NOTES:

Relate this to our discussion on Section 1, Rule 9.

Under Section 5, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules, when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by
express or implied consent of the parties, such issues shall be treated in all respects as if they had been
raised in the pleadings. This provision is premised on the fact that evidence has been introduced on an
issue not raised by the pleadings without any objection thereto being raised by the parties (MWSS vs.
Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 623).

Example:

In an action for collection of unpaid loan, defendant filed his answer in which the only
affirmative defense that he interposed is payment. During the trial, however, he
presented evidence tending to prove that his obligation has been extinguished by way
of novation, and, for one reason or another, the plaintiff did not interpose any objection
to such evidence and that he even prayed the court to rule on that issue. The court, in
that situation, may tackle and resolve such issue on novation of obligation, albeit it was
not raised in the pleadings.

In fact, Section 5, Rule 10 may also apply also cover situations where the complaint insufficiently states a
cause of action (as differentiated from lack of cause of action), in that any such insufficiency may be cured
by evidence presented during the trial.

Example:

An action for collection of an unpaid loan is filed in court. At the time of the filing of the
complaint the promissory note had already matured, but the complaint failed to state,
however, that plaintiff already made a demand upon the defendant to pay. Defendant
had already filed his answer to the complaint. And plaintiff did not bother to amend his
complaint. But during the trial, plaintiff introduced in evidence the demand letter which
he sent to the defendant, and defendant did not object thereto.
 Q: Can the court take cognizance of the demand letter?
A: Yes, and that’s allowed under Section 5, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules.

In the above situation, there is no more need to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence
presented – unlike under the previous rule.

But take note that Section 5, Rule 10 of the Amended Rules cannot be made to apply or to introduce a
cause of action where none existed at all at the time of the filing of the pleading sought be amended and
where a responsive pleading has already been filed. Case in point is …

Swagman Hotels And Travel Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

455 SCRA 175

FACTS:

This is an action for collection of unpaid loan. At the time of the filing of the complaint, NONE of
the promissory notes subject of the action was due and demandable. The defendants filed their
answer, raising as a defense lack of cause of action. During the pendency of the action, two of the
promissory notes matured and the same were introduced in evidence.

HELD:
“With these findings of facts, it has become glaringly obvious that when the complaint for a sum
of money and damages was filed with the trial court on 2 February 1999, no cause of action has as
yet existed because the petitioner had not committed any act in violation of the terms of the three
promissory notes as modified by the renegotiation in December 1997. Without a cause of action,
the private respondent had no right to maintain an action in court, and the trial court should have
therefore dismissed his complaint.
xxx xxx

Amendments of pleadings are allowed under Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in
order that the actual merits of a case may be determined in the most expeditious and inexpensive
manner without regard to technicalities, and that all other matters included in the case may be
determined in a single proceeding, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits. Section 5 thereof applies
to situations wherein evidence not within the issues raised in the pleadings is presented by the
parties during the trial, and to conform to such evidence the pleadings are subsequently amended
on motion of a party. Thus, a complaint which fails to state a cause of action may be cured by
evidence presented during the trial.

However, the curing effect under Section 5 is applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at
the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential
facts. For example, if a complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition precedent upon
which the cause of action depends, evidence showing that such condition had already been
fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be presented during the trial, and the complaint may
accordingly be amended thereafter. Thus, in Roces v. Jalandoni, this Court upheld the trial court in
taking cognizance of an otherwise defective complaint which was later cured by the testimony of
the plaintiff during the trial. In that case, there was in fact a cause of action and the only problem
was the insufficiency of the allegations in the complaint. This ruling was reiterated in Pascua v.
Court of Appeals.
 It thus follows that a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or
remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a
cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is,
therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion
seasonably filed by the defendant. The underlying reason for this rule is that a person should not
be summoned before the public tribunals to answer for complaints which are immature. As this
Court eloquently said in Surigao Mine Exploration Co., Inc. v. Harris:

“It is a rule of law to which there is, perhaps, no exception, either at law or in equity, that to
recover at all there must be some cause of action at the commencement of the suit. As
observed by counsel for appellees, there are reasons of public policy why there should be no
needless haste in bringing up litigation, and why people who are in no default and against whom
there is yet no cause of action should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer
complaints which are groundless. We say groundless because if the action is immature, it should
not be entertained, and an action prematurely brought is a groundless suit.
xxx xxx xxx

We are therefore of the opinion, and so hold, that unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting
cause of action at the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied
by the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental
complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not
permissible.”

(CAVEAT: As discussed herein-before, the ruling would have been different if after the
maturity of the promissory notes and before the defendant could file his answer, the
complaint has been amended to allege the maturity of the promissory notes because, in
this situation, amendment is matter of right.)

Section 6. Supplemental pleadings. — Upon motion of a party, the court may, upon
reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him or her 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) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
supplemental pleading. (6a)

NOTES:

Supplemental pleadings are those which aver facts occurring after the filing of the original pleadings and
which are material to the mature claims or defenses therein alleged.

A supplemental pleading exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it
supplements. Moreover, a supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that
the issues joined with the original pleading remain as issues to be tried in action. It is but a continuation
of the complaint. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind of relief
with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original complaint (Chan vs.
Chan, 569 SCRA 106).
 Example:

I obtained a loan from Waldi, in the principal amount of 1 Million, payable in one year
and in four (4) equal quarterly installments, and for which I issued four (4) post-dated
checks. When the first two post-dated checks matured, Waldi presented the same for
payment but the same were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Waldi then filed a
case for sum of money based on the first two post-dated checks which bounced. But
during the pendency of the case, the other two post-dated checks fell due and were
likewise dishonored by non-payment.

Q: Can Waldi subsequently file a supplemental complaint for the other two post-dated
checks?
A: Yes, provided that he obtains LEAVE OF COURT. A supplemental complaint may be
filed for installments that fall due after the filing of the complaint (Asiatic Petroleum vs.
Veloso, 62 Phil. 687).

Take note, however, that the supplemental complaint must be based on matters arising subsequent to
the original complaint and that it should be related to the claim or defense presented therein and
founded on the same cause of action. Case in point is ….

Leobrera vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 80001, February 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 711

“A” obtained a loan from a housing loan from the bank, evidenced by a promissory note. A few
months thereafter “A” secured another loan from the same bank – an agricultural loan, secured
by another promissory note. When the first promissory note fell due, “A” failed to pay, so the
bank filed an action for collection of the said promissory note. During the pendency of the case,
the second promissory note for the agricultural loan fell due, so the bank filed a supplemental
complaint to include the second promissory note in the action.

Q: Is the filing of the supplemental complaint proper?

A: NO. Although the parties are the same, yet the fact remains that the two promissory notes
pertain to different or separate loans.

Of relevance is the other case of ….

SUPERCLEAN SERVICES INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

258 SCRA 165

FACTS:

Superclean Service Corp. is a company engaged in janitorial services. The Home Development
and Mutual Fund (HDMF) conducted a public bidding for janitorial services to the offices of the
HDMF for the year 1990. Superclean won in the bidding and it was supposed to start providing
 janitorial services for the year 1990. However, the HDMF refused to honor the award. So, on
November 8, 1989, Superclean filed in the RTC of Manila a complaint for mandamus and
certiorari against HDMF, alleging that at the public bidding for janitorial services for the year
1990, it won as the lowest bidder but HDMF refused, without just cause, to award the contract to
them. However, 1990 had elapsed or ended but the case was still on-going. So, what Superclean
did was to file a supplemental complaint in 1991 alleging that, because the contract of service
was the furnishing of janitorial services for the year 1990, the delay in the decision of the case has
rendered the case moot and academic without Superclean obtaining complete relief to redress the
wrong committed against it by HDMF, which relief now consists of unrealized profits, exemplary
damages and attorney‘s fees. So, instead of pursuing its prayer for mandamus, Superclean sought
for the payment of damages to it through a supplemental complaint.

ISSUE: Is the filing of supplemental complaint proper in order to seek a different relief in view of
developments rendering the original complaint impossible of attainment?

HELD:

“The transaction, occurrence or event happening since the filing of the pleading, which is sought
to be supplemented, must be pleaded in aid of a party's right of defense as the case may be. But in
the case at bar, the supervening event is not invoked for that purpose but to justify the new relief
sought.

To begin with, what was alleged as a supervening event causing damage to Superclean was the
fact that the year for which the contract should have been made had passed without the resolution
of the case. The supervening event was cited not to reinforce or aid the original demand, which
was for the execution of a contract in petitioner's favor, but to say that, precisely because of it,
petitioner's demand could no longer be enforced, thus justifying petitioner in changing the relief
sought to one for recovery of damages. This being the case, petitioner's remedy was not to
supplement, but rather to amend its complaint.”

Amended pleading, therefore, can be differentiated from a supplemental pleading, in this wise:

i. As to subject – Amended pleadings refer to the facts existing at the time or original
pleading; whereas, supplemental pleadings refer to those occurring after the filing of
the original pleading;

ii. As to effect – Amended pleading supersedes the original; whereas, supplemental

pleading merely supplements;

iii. As to time – Original pleadings may be amended without leave of court before a
responsive pleading is filed; whereas, a supplemental pleading always needs leave of
court;

iv. As to form – In amended pleadings, the amendment must be appropriately marked. But
there is no such requirement in supplemental pleadings.
Where a supplemental pleading is permitted by the court, the failure to answer thereto when ordered by
the court is a ground for default (Del Bros. vs. IAC, 159 SCRA 533). BUT where the basic and principal
issue which had been previously traversed and joined by the answer remained, there is no necessity to
require the defendant to plead further to the supplemental complaint and there is no legal ground to
declare him in default for such failure to plead. After all, under Section 7, Rule 11 of the Amended Rules,
a supplemental complaint may be answered within 20 calendar days from notice of the order admitting
the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall then serve as
the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new supplemental answer is filed, thus:

Section 7, Rule 11. Answer to supplemental complaint. — A supplemental complaint

may be answered within twenty (20) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. The answer to the complaint shall
serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is
filed.
Example:

I obtained a loan from Waldi, in the principal amount of 1 Million, payable in one year
and in four (4) equal quarterly installments, and for which I issued four (4) post-dated
checks. When the first two (2) post-dated checks matured, Waldi presented the same
for payment but the same were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Waldi then filed a
case for collection of unpaid loan based on the first two (2) post-dated checks which
bounced, albeit, in his complaint, he likewise mentioned about, and even attached
copies of, the other two post-dated checks which have yet to mature but he did not, as
he could not, make a demand for the payment thereof. After having been served with
summons, I filed my answer, whereby I denied having obtained any such loan from
Waldi. In my answer, I even denied under oath the specimen signatures appearing in the
four (4) post-dated checks. During the pendency of the case, the other two post-dated
checks fell due and were likewise dishonored by non-payment, such that Waldi filed a
supplemental complaint to cover the other two post-dated checks.

Q: Do I need to answer the supplemental complaint?

A: No. The answer to the complaint shall then serve as the answer to the supplemental
complaint if no new supplemental answer is filed. And I cannot be declared in default if I
do not file an answer to the supplemental complaint.

Q: Suppose, in my answer, I actually admitted having obtained a loan from Waldi and
having issued the checks, but I interposed the defense that first two (2) checks that
bounced (subject of the original complaint) had already been redeemed with cash, at
face value. If Waldi subsequently filed, and was allowed by the court, to file a
supplemental complaint, with respect to the other two (2) other checks which
subsequently bounced, for which the court directed me to file an answer thereto, would
my answer to the original complaint stand as my answer to the supplemental complaint
in the event that I would not file a supplemental answer?
A: No. My answer to the original complaint would not serve as the answer to the
supplemental complaint, inasmuch as I did not deny the obligation and the issuance of
the checks and more so that the said answer interposed a defense that specifically
pertains to the first two (2) checks only; hence, I may be declared in default insofar as
the supplemental complaint is concerned relative to the other two (2) checks.
Section 7. Filing of amended pleadings. — When any pleading is amended, a new copy of
the entire pleading, incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate
marks, shall be filed. (7)

NOTES:

Amendments to a pleading should be indicated in the amended pleading, as by underscoring, enclosing

them in quotation marks, putting them in capital letters, etc., as would make them readily evident.

In actual practice, amendments are normally indicated in the pleading as by underscoring the changes.

Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that
it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against
the pleader, and claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading
shall be deemed waived. (8a)

NOTES:

An amended pleading supersedes the pleading it amends. Be that as it may, the original the pleading is
not physically expunged from the records of the case. Reference can thereby be made thereto, in that any
statement contained therein may be considered as an extrajudicial admission. But, in order that the court
may take it into consideration as such, it should, however, be formally offered in evidence.

Verily, if in the original answer, for instance, the defendant admitted the obligation but interposed the
defense of payment and, that later on, the defendant amended his answer and totally denied having
contracted a debt from the plaintiff, the admission contained in the original answer may be received in
evidence against the defendant. Such original answer, however, should be introduced formally in
evidence by the plaintiff, as the court will not motu proprio take judicial notice of that. If it is not offered in
evidence, the admission contained therein will not be considered.

So, the rule is that the amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. However, the filing of the
amended pleading does not retroact to the filing of the original pleading, hence, the statute of limitations
runs until the filing of the amendment (Ruymann, et al. vs. Director of Lands, 34 Phil. 429). But an
amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the complaint relates back
to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations which
expired after the service of the original complaint. It is the actual filing in court (of the original pleading)
that controls and not the date of the formal admission of the amended pleading (Verzosa vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 119511-13, November 24, 1998). However, the immediately preceding rule would not
apply to the party who was impleaded for the first time in the amended complaint which was filed after
the period of prescription had already lapsed, hence the amended must be dismissed as to such party
who was thus belatedly included in the action (Seno vs. Mangubat, et al., L-44339, December 2, 1987).
 Examples:

I obtained a loan from Waldi, in the principal amount of 1 Million, for which I issued two
(2) post-dated checks which would fall, due, as the same matured, on a similar date but
to be drawn against two different drawee banks – PNB and BPI. I did not pay my
obligation, prompting Waldi to file a case for collection of sum of money. Waldi filed the
complaint on the last day of the prescription of the action. In the complaint that he filed,
Waldi merely demanded payment for the PNB check, as he forgot about the BPI check.
After the filing of the complaint, Waldi realized, to his dismay, that he omitted the BPI
check, such that he hurriedly amended the complaint to include the BPI check in the
action and demand payment therefor, and to likewise include an allegation that he
actually made demands upon me for the payment of the two checks, and he filed the
amended complaint even before I could file my answer to the original complaint.

Q: Has the action prescribed insofar as the BPI check is concerned?

A: Yes. The action has prescribed insofar as the BPI check is concerned. The filing of the
amended pleading does not retroact to the filing of the original pleading, hence, the
statute of limitations runs until the filing of the amendment (Ruymann, et al. vs. Director
of Lands, 34 Phil. 429).

Q: Has the action also prescribed insofar as the PNB check is concerned?
A: No. The action has not prescribed insofar as the PNB check is concerned. An
amendment which merely supplements and amplifies facts originally alleged in the
complaint relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred
by the statute of limitations which expired after the service of the original complaint. It
is the actual filing in court (of the original pleading) that controls and not the date of the
formal admission of the amended pleading (Verzosa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
119511-13, November 24, 1998)

Q: Suppose in the amended complaint, Waldi impleaded Randi as an additional

defendant, inasmuch as Randi likewise signed the two bum checks as a co-
signatory/joint signatory therein. Has the action prescribed as to him?
A: Yes, both with respect to the PNB and the BPI Checks. The immediately preceding
rule as enunciated in Verzosa case would not apply to the party who was impleaded for
the first time in the amended complaint which was filed after the period of prescription
had already lapsed, hence the action must be dismissed as to such party who was thus
belatedly included in the action (Seno vs. Mangubat, et al., L-44339, December 2, 1987).

Be it noted, however, that while an amended pleading supersedes the pleading it amends, it does not
ipso facto follow that where what is amended is the complaint, new summons would then be served on
the defendant. Such is not required with respect to the defendant who has already appeared before the
trial court by virtue of a summons in the original complaint, as by filing an answer to the original
complaint. In that situation, the amended complaint would just have to be served upon the defendant
without need of another summons.

Conversely, where the defendant has not yet been served with summons under the original complaint
and such pleading is later on amended, new summons should thus be served upon the defendant. If the
trial court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, a new summons for the amended
complaint is required (Vlason Enterprises Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 26). This is the rule to be
followed also with respect to newly impleaded defendant or one who is impleaded only under the
amended complaint. Summons must also be served on the newly impleaded defendant, so that the court
can acquire jurisdiction over his person because, logically, the newly impleaded defendant cannot be
deemed to have already appeared by virtue of the summons under the original complaint.