Header Ads Widget

WILFREDO P. VERZOSA vs. COURT OF APPEALS [G.R. Nos. 119511-13. November 24, 1998 (Digested)

WILFREDO P. VERZOSA vs. COURT OF APPEALS[G.R. Nos. 119511-13. November 24, 1998]

       Fe Uson failed to pay her entire obligation to Verzosa, prompting the latter to have the mortgage foreclosed. 
       Defendant Verzosa filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
       The complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was not personally verified by plaintiff Fe Uson.
       Fe Uson filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted by the court.
       Then,  filed her amended complaint which bears the proper verification.
       the trial court issued an order admitting the amended complaint of Fe Uson.
       At this point, Verzosa filed with the Court of Appeals for certiorari. He alleged that the said order, admitting the amended complaint was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals erred in not taking into account or dealing squarely with the nature, effects and proper interpretation and/or application of the doctrine on amendment of pleadings/complaints to the instant case.
It follows that when the amended complaint does not introduce new issues, causes of action, or demands, the suit is deemed to have commenced on the date the original complaint was filed, not on the date of the filing of the amended complaint. In other words, for demands already included in the original complaint, the suit is deemed to have commenced upon the filing of such original complaint. In short, for purposes of determining the commencement of a suit, the original complaint is deemed abandoned and superseded by the amended complaint only if the amended complaint introduces a new or different cause of action or demand.
Hence, it has been held that an amendment which merely supplements and amplifies the facts originally alleged relates back to the date of the commencement of the action and is not barred by the statute of limitations, the period of which expires after service of the original complaint but before service of amendment. It is the actual filing in court that controls and not the date of the formal admission of the amended pleading. The Court in Republic v. Marsman[elucidated:

Post a Comment