NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. L-68636 February 29,1988. (Digested)

NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION,vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTG.R. No. L-68636 February 29,1988

CRUZ, J.:

Civil Procedure

Facts:

It is contended that the respondent court erred in limiting the refund to the amount specified by the petitioner in its counterclaim. The trial court had allowed the refund in the sum of P526,280.53 on the justification that this had been established by the evidence adduced at the trial. On appeal, however, the respondent court reversed, holding that this refund should be limited to the sum of P31,652.62, which was the amount claimed in the counterclaim.

Issue:

 Whether or not the respondent court erred in limiting the refund to the amount specified by the petitioners in its counterclaim.

Held:.

The applicable rule is Rule 10, Section 5.

There have been instances where the Court has held that even without the necessary amendment, the amount proved at the trial may be validly awarded, as in Tuazon v. Bolanos,  where we said that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where defendant had himself raised the point on which recovery was based. The appellate court could treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidence although the pleadings were not actually amended. Amendment is also unnecessary when only clerical errors or non-substantial matters are involved, as we held in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Laguna.  In Co Tiamco v. Diaz,  we stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. And in the recent case of National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals,  we held that where there is a variance in the defendant's pleadings and the evidence adduced by it at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as amended to conform with the evidence.

It is the view of the Court that pursuant to the above mentioned rule and in light of the decisions cited, the trial court should not be precluded from awarding an amount higher than that claimed in the pleadings notwithstanding the absence of the required amendment. But this is upon the condition that the evidence of such higher amount has been presented properly, with full opportunity on the part of the opposing parties to support their respective contentions and to refute each other's evidence.