Alpine Lending Investors and/or Rogelio L. Ong vs. Estrella Corpuz

A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Section 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; consequently, a plaintiff may amend the complaint once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served, and the trial court's duty to accept the amended complaint is ministerial.

Estrella Corpuz owned a Toyota Tamaraw FX with Plate No. UMR 660. Zenaida Lipata was her former neighbor. Alpine Lending Investors and Rogelio L. Ong are the petitioners, while Corpuz is the respondent. The governing procedural backdrop is Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on amendments to pleadings.

Estrella Corpuz owned a Toyota Tamaraw FX with Plate No. UMR 660. Zenaida Lipata, her former neighbor, pretended to help Corpuz secure a Garage Franchise from the Land Transportation Office (LTO). In the course of that supposed assistance, Lipata took from Corpuz the original registration papers of the vehicle. Using those papers and representing herself as the owner, Lipata retrieved the vehicle from Richmond Auto Center, where it was being repaired, and thereafter disappeared with it.

Corpuz reported the incident to the LTO Muntinlupa City Branch. There, she was informed that Lipata had mortgaged the vehicle with Alpine Lending Investors. The LTO showed Corpuz a Chattel Mortgage Contract bearing her forged signature. Corpuz then informed Alpine about the spurious mortgage and demanded the release of her vehicle. Alpine promised to comply with the request on the condition that Lipata should first be charged criminally.

Corpuz caused the filing with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City of complaints for falsification of private document and estafa against Lipata. A warrant of arrest was eventually issued against Lipata. Corpuz informed Alpine of these developments, but Alpine still refused to turn over the vehicle to her.

Corpuz then filed a complaint for replevin with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City against Alpine and Lipata, docketed as Civil Case No. C-20124. Instead of filing an answer, Alpine submitted a motion to dismiss on the ground that it is not a juridical person and therefore not a proper party in the case.

• Improper Party: Alpine moved to dismiss respondent's complaint on the ground that it is not a juridical person, hence not a proper party in the case.
• Admission of Amended Complaint: Petitioners assailed the RTC Order dated December 13, 2002 admitting respondent's amended complaint, maintaining that the trial court erred in admitting it.
• Notice of Hearing: Alpine filed a Motion to Expunge respondent's motion to admit amended complaint on the ground that the latter motion was not accompanied by a notice of hearing.

• Non-Litigated Motion: Respondent averred in her Comment that her contested motion to admit amended complaint need not be accompanied by a notice of hearing as it is a "non-litigated motion."

• Admission of Amended Complaint: Whether the trial court erred in admitting respondent's amended complaint.

• Admission of Amended Complaint: No. The RTC did not err. Because Alpine had filed only a motion to dismiss, not a responsive pleading, respondent could amend her complaint once as a matter of right under Section 2, Rule 10; the trial court's duty to accept the amended complaint was ministerial.

• Admission of Amended Complaint: Sections 1 and 2, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure govern. Section 1 allows amendments to pleadings so that the actual merits may be speedily determined without regard to technicalities. Section 2 provides that 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, within ten (10) days after it is served. Alpine filed a motion to dismiss, not an answer. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Section 2, Rule 10. Since no responsive pleading had been filed, respondent could amend her complaint as a matter of right. Following Breslin vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co., because respondent had the right to amend, the trial court had the correlative duty to accept the amended complaint; otherwise, mandamus would lie. The trial court's duty to admit the amended complaint was purely ministerial. In fact, respondent should not have filed a motion to admit her amended complaint. The Court also reiterated its policy of liberally allowing amendments to pleadings so that the real controversies may be presented and cases decided on the merits without delay.

• Amendment as a Matter of Right under Rule 10, Section 2 — 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, within ten (10) days after it is served. In this case, because Alpine filed only a motion to dismiss and not an answer, no responsive pleading had been served; thus, Corpuz could amend her complaint as a matter of right.
• Motion to Dismiss Is Not a Responsive Pleading — For purposes of Section 2, Rule 10, a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. The Court applied this rule to hold that the right to amend as a matter of right had not been cut off.
• Ministerial Duty to Accept Amended Complaint — Where a party has the right to amend, the trial court has the correlative duty to accept the amended complaint; otherwise, mandamus would lie. The trial court's duty is purely ministerial. The Court cited Breslin vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co.
• Liberal Policy on Amendments — It is the policy of the Court to be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings so that the real controversies may be presented and cases decided on the merits without delay. This policy supported the affirmance of the RTC's admission of the amended complaint.

• "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) days after it is served." — This is the Court's quotation of Section 2, Rule 10, and it supplies the controlling rule on amendment as a matter of right.
• "Settled is the rule that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Section 2, Rule 10." — This is the ratio decidendi on the nature of a motion to dismiss; it explains why the right to amend as a matter of right had not been cut off.
• "As no responsive pleading had been filed, respondent could amend her complaint in Civil Case No. C-20124 as a matter of right." — This applies the rule to the facts and is the core holding of the decision.
• "considering that respondent has the right to amend her complaint, it is the correlative duty of the trial court to accept the amended complaint; otherwise, mandamus would lie against it. In other words, the trial court’s duty to admit the amended complaint was purely ministerial." — This states the consequence of the right to amend and defines the trial court's duty as ministerial.

• Breslin vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co., 84 Phil. 618 (1949) — Cited for the rule that where a party has the right to amend the complaint, the trial court has the correlative duty to accept the amended complaint; otherwise, mandamus would lie against it.
• Ong Peng vs. Custodio, G.R. No. 14911, March 25, 1961, 1 SCRA 780, 784-785 — Cited for the rule that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of Section 2, Rule 10.
• Republic vs. Ilao, G.R. No. 16667, January 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 106, 112-113 — Cited together with Ong Peng vs. Custodio for the same rule that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.

• Section 1, Rule 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking 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, so that the actual merits may be speedily determined without regard to technicalities and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. The Court cited this as part of the liberal amendment policy.
• Section 2, Rule 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — 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, within ten (10) days after it is served. The Court applied this to hold that because Alpine filed only a motion to dismiss, which is not a responsive pleading, respondent could amend as a matter of right.

Reynato S. Puno (Chairperson), Renato C. Corona, Adolfo S. Azcuna, and Cancio C. Garcia.