SPOUSES ORLANDO M. LAMBINO LAMBINOv. HON. PRESIDING JUDGED G.R. NO. 169551 : January 24, 2007 (Digested)

SPOUSES ORLANDO M. LAMBINO LAMBINOv. HON. PRESIDING JUDGED
G.R. NO. 169551 : January 24, 2007CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Facts:

          The trial court issued an Orderdenying the motion of petitioners in its finding that the alleged escalating and arbitrary rate of interest and other charges imposed by private respondent had accrued long before the complaint was filed. It held that under Section 6, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, only transactions, occurrences, or events which accrued after the date of the complaint may be set forth in the supplemental complaint.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order, alleging therein that the escalating, arbitrary rate of interest, and other charges referred to under paragraphs III, IV and V of their supplemental complaint took place after the filing of their complaint.

They insist that it was discovered for the first time only after they had been furnished with the statements of account by defendant during pretrial.

         However, on January 2, 2001, the court issued an Order denying the motion of petitioners.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA seeking to nullify the Orders of the RTC. They alleged that the RTC committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders.

On March 7, 2005, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition.

Issue:

          THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO ADMIT SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 6, RULE 10, REVISED RULES OF COURT.

Held:

           The admission or non-admission of a supplemental pleading is not a matter of right but is discretionary on the court.Among the factors that the court will consider are: (1) resulting prejudice to the parties; and (2) whether the movant would be prejudiced if the supplemental pleading were to be denied. What constitutes prejudice to the opposing party depends upon the particular circumstance of each case. An opposing party who has had notice of the general nature of the claim or matter asserted in the supplemental pleading from the beginning of the action will not be prejudiced by the granting of leave to file a supplemental pleading. A motion for leave to file a supplemental pleading may be denied if he is guilty of undue delay or laches which causes substantial prejudice to the opposing party.