Rule 10

AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

Part I. AMENDMENTS

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

What do you understand by amendment? The general meaning of amendment is change. Now can
we amend pleadings, change it? Yes.

Q: How do you amend a pleading?

A: Well, any type of change – you can add a word or a sentence or you strike out an allegation or
you add or strike out a party; you correct a mistake in the name of a party or inadequate allegation or
description in any other respect. As a matter of fact, if you correct only one letter, that is already an
amendment.

So you can amend by removing something, adding something, or changing something by

substituting another word. You can amend by removing an entire paragraph, an entire sentence, a
phrase, or a word. So that is what amendment is all about. As a matter of fact, before reaching Rule 10,
there are provisions where amendments have already been touched upon, one of which is Rule 1,
Section 5:

Sec. 5. Commencement of action.- A civil action is commenced by the filing of

the original complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a
later pleading, the action is commenced with regard to him on the date of the
filing of such later pleading, irrespective of whether the motion for its
admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.

So in other words, if I file a complaint against A, then later on I will include another defendant, the
inclusion of an additional defendant party is an amendment.

Q: Suppose I will file a case against Jacques today, January 9, then one month from today I will file
another complaint to include an additional defendant, Tikla. When is the case deemed commenced?
A: According to Rule 1, Section 5, as far as Jacques is concerned, the original defendant, the case
against him is commenced today. But as far as Tikla is concerned, the additional defendant, the case is
commenced not upon the filing of the original complaint, but on the date when he is included in the
amended complaint. So, the amendment does not retroact to the date of the filing of the original action.

Q: What is the policy of the law on amendments? Should it be encouraged or discouraged? If a

party wants to amend his complaint or answer, should the court be liberal in allowing the amendment
or should it restrict, as a general rule, and not allow the amendment?
A: Section 1 says that the purpose of amendment is that the actual merits of the controversy may
speedily be determined without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive
manner. According to the SC, amendments to pleadings are favored and should be liberally allowed in
order (a) to determine every case as far as possible on its actual merits without regard to technicalities,
(b) to speed up the trial of cases, and (c) to prevent unnecessary expenses. (Verzosa vs. Verzosa,
L-25603, Nov. 27, 1968; Cese vs. GSIS, L-135814, Aug. 31, 1960)

EXAMPLE: The plaintiff files his complaint or the defendant files his answer and then later on he
realizes that his cause of action is wrong or that his defense is wrong. He would like to change his
complaint or change his answer. All he has to do is amend his complaint or answer. The court cannot
stop him from changing his complaint or changing his answer because the purpose of litigation is: the
real nature of controversy will be litigated in court. You cannot normally stop the party from ventilating
his real cause of action or his real defense so that the rule is that amendments should be liberally

162
JBD
allowed in the furtherance of justice and that the real merits of the case will come out in court. That is
what you have to remember about concept of amendments and the policy of the rules on amendments.

TYPES OF AMENDMENTS:

The following are the important points to remember here:

FIRST, there are two types of amendment of pleadings under the rules:
1) An amendment as a matter of right; or
2) An amendment as a matter of judicial discretion

SECOND, an amendment could be

1) a formal amendment; or
2) a substantial amendment

These are the same classification under the Rules on Criminal Procedure under Rule 110.

Amendment as a MATTER OF RIGHT; and

Amendment as a MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT simply means that the party has the unconditional
action or right to amend his pleading. The court has no right to prevent him from amending. The
opposite party has no right to oppose the amendment.

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION simply means that the court may or
may not allow the amendment. So the other party has the right to oppose.

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

Q: When is amendment a matter of right?

A: Section 2:

Sec. 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) days after it is
served. (2a)

PROBLEM: I am the plaintiff, I file a complaint. I want to amend my complaint. When is the
amendment a matter of right?
A: At any time a responsive pleading is served to the complaint. Meaning, at any time before the
defendant has filed his answer, the plaintiff may change his complaint at any time. He may change it in
any manner, substantially or formally.

Q: How about the defendant? Suppose he wants to change his answer, when is his right absolute
or as a matter of fact right?
A: At any time before a reply by the plaintiff is filed or before the expiration of the period to file a
reply because a reply may or may be not be filed.

Q: How about if you want to amend your reply? You cannot say before a responsive pleading is
served because there is no more responsive pleading to the reply.
A: So under Section 2, the plaintiff can amend his reply at any time within ten (10) days after it is
served.

Q: Is there any other instance when amendment is a matter of right even if there is already an
answer or even in the middle of the trial the party can still change his pleading and it seems that the
court should allow it?
A: Yes, there is a second instance, when the amendment is FORMAL IN NATURE as found in
Section 4:

163
JBD
 Sec. 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. (4a)

When the amendment is fairly formal, it can be done anytime. As a matter of fact it can be
summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, upon motion or even without motion, the
court will order the amendment. Because anyway that is a harmless correction.

NOTE: Change of amount of damages is only formal because there is no change in the cause of
action.

SUMMARY: Amendment as a matter of right:

1) Before an answer is filed (Complaint);
2) Before a reply is filed or before the period for filing a reply expires (Answer);
3) Any time within 10 days after it is served (Reply); and
4) Formal amendment

AMENDMENT AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION

So we will now go to substantial amendments which are a matter of judicial discretion, that is
Section 3:

Sec. 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 may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was
made with intent to delay. 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)

Q: When is an amendment a matter of judicial discretion?

A: The amendment must be substantial and the adverse party has already filed and served a copy
of his responsive pleading.

PROBLEM: I will file my complaint against you and you will file your answer. After you have filed
your answer, I want to amend my complaint and my amendments is not merely formal but something
substantial, like my cause of action will not be the same anymore.
Q: Can it still be done?
A: YES, BUT this time it is a matter of judicial discretion. It must be with leave of court. So I will
have to file a motion in court to allow or admit the proposed amended complaint. I will furnish a copy
of the motion to my opponent together with a copy of the amended complaint and the other party has
the right to oppose the amendment. So the court will hear and decide whether to allow the
amendment or not.

Q: Assuming that the amendment is a matter of judicial discretion, how should the court resolve it?
Assuming that the argument is 50-50 and the court is deliberating whether or not to allow the
amendment.
A: Based on established jurisprudence, the court should always allow the amendment because of
the liberal policy of the rules. Amendments of pleadings should be liberally allowed in order that the
real merits of the case can be ventilated in court without regard to technicalities. So the court will
always lean on allowing a pleading to be amended. That is the liberal policy.

LIMITATIONS TO THE LIBERAL POLICY IN AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS

Q: What are the limitations to this liberal policy in allowing amendments? Meaning, when can the
court refuse to allow the amendment and when can you validly oppose it?
A: The following:
1) when the amendment is to delay the action (Section 3);

164
JBD
 2) when the amendment is for the purpose of making the complaint confer jurisdiction upon
the court (Rosario vs. Carangdang, 96 Phil. 845);
3) when the amendment is for the purpose of curing a premature or non-existing cause of
action (Limpangco vs. Mercado, 10 Phil. 508; Wong vs. Yatco, 99 Phil. 791)

1.) WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS TO DELAY THE ACTION

The second sentence of Section 3 says that such leave may be refused if it appears that the motion
was made with intent to delay. Meaning, the motion to amend is dilatory. Example: a case is filed
against the defendant based on a cause of action then trial…trial…then the case is already about to end.
Then the plaintiff says he wants to amend his complaint and change his cause of action. I don’t think
the court will allow it. That’s too much.

Or, the defendant will say that he would like to change his defense. I don’t think the court will
agree with that situation because it appears that the motion to amend is already dilatory. Why did it
take you one year to realize that your cause of action or your defense is wrong? So that is a limitation
where the court may refuse to apply the principles on liberality. The liberal policy becomes weaker or
is working against you the longer you delay your amendment because it might already be interpreted
to be dilatory.

Now if you will notice, there is another limitation found in the old rules that is gone here, and that
is : That the amendment will not be allowed if it will SUBSTANTIALLY alter the cause of action or defense
(Torres vs. Tomacruz, 49 Phil. 913) The implication here is that, since amendment is favored, even if you
alter you cause of action or defense, you should not prevent the other party provided that it is not
dilatory. And the definition of this limitation is a confirmation of what the SC said in some cases like
the case of
MARINI-GONZALES vs. LOOD
148 SCRA 452

HELD: “While the Rules of Court authorize the courts to disallow amendment of
pleadings when it appears that the same is made to delay an action or that the cause of
action or defense is substantially altered thereby, the rule is not absolute.” It is discretionary.
“Courts are not precluded from allowing amendments of pleadings even if the same will
substantially change the cause of action or defense provided that such amendments do not
result in a substantial injury to the adverse party. This is due to the permissive character of
said rule [which provides: “may refuse”]. In fact, this Court has ruled that amendments to
pleadings are favored and should be liberally allowed in the furtherance of justice.”

That is why these are enough reason to delete that limitation. But if you are going to change your
cause of action or defense when the trial is almost over, hindi na puwede because that will be dilatory.
But if you want to change it before the trial, that it still allowed, even if it is substantial in nature. That’s
why this limitation disappeared. But despite the fact that there is only one limitation now left, it is
conceded that there are still limitations not found in the law which have remained intact.

2.) WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE COMPLAINT CONFER
JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT

In other words, based on the original complaint the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
So I will amend the complaint so that the court will have jurisdiction. Well, that will not be allowed. So,
jurisdiction by the court cannot be conferred by amendment when the original complaint shows that
the court has no jurisdiction.

For EXAMPLE: I will file a complaint for an unpaid loan and the amount is exactly P200,000 only.
Where should I file the complaint? MTC. But by mistake I file it in the RTC and later I realized that the
case should have been filed in the MTC because the jurisdiction of the RTC should be above P200,000.
So I will amend my complaint and change the complaint and say that my claim is P100,001.00. The
obvious purpose of the amendment is to make the case fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
According to the SC, it cannot be done.

165
JBD
 The rule here is when in its face, the complaint shows that the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the court has no authority to act in the case. And if you move to amend it and ask the
court to allow the amendment, you are assuming that the court has the authority to act on the case. But
the court can’t allow it because the court has no authority to act. So the court even is not authorized to
allow the amendment because it has no authority to act in the first place. How can you allow
something when you do not have the authority to act? My golly!

So according to the SC, when its on very face the complaint shows that the court has no jurisdiction,
the court has only one authority and its only authority is to dismiss the case. So with that an
amendment cannot confer jurisdiction.

3.) WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CURING A PREMATURE OR NON-
EXISTING CAUSE OF ACTION

Meaning, on its very face, there is no cause of action, there is no case. There is no delict or there is
no wrong. Now how can you create a delict or wrong by amending your complaint? In effect, you are
creating something out of nothing.

BAR QUESTION: How do you distinguish a NON-EXISTENT cause of action from IMPERFECT
cause of action?
A: The following are the distinctions:

1) In a NON-EXISTENT cause of action, there is yet no delict or wrong committed by the

defendant (Limpangco vs. Mercado, 10 Phil. 508) whereas
In an IMPERFECT cause of action, a delict or wrong has already been committed and
alleged in the complaint, but he cause of action is incomplete (Alto Surety vs. Aguilar,
L-5625, March 16, 1945); and

2) a NON-EXISTENT cause of action is not curable by amendment (Limpangco vs. Mercado,

10 Phil. 508; Surigao Mine vs. Harris, 68 Phil. 113) whereas
an IMPERFECT cause of action is curable by amendment (Alto Surety vs. Aguilar, L-5625,
March 16, 1945; Ramos vs. Gibbon, 67 Phil. 371).

BAR QUESTION: Suppose the filing of the complaint will lapse on January 20 and I will file the
complaint today so the running of the period will be interrupted. Suppose I will amend my complaint
next month, on February. Question: Is prescription properly interrupted? When an original complaint
is amended later, when is the prescriptive period for filing the action interrupted? Upon the filing of
the original complaint or upon the filing of the amended complaint?
A: It DEPENDS upon the nature of the amendment:
a) If the amendment introduces a new and different cause of action, then the prescriptive
period is deemed interrupted upon the filing of the amended complaint; (Ruymann vs. Dir.
of Lands, 34 Phil. 428)

b) But where the amendment has not altered or changed the original cause of action, no
different cause of action is introduced in the amended complaint, then the interruption of
the prescriptive period retroacts on the date of the filing of the original complaint.
(Pangasinan Trans. CO. vs. Phil. Farming Co., 81 Phil. 273; Maniago vs. Mallari, 52 O.G. 180,
October 31, 1956)

EXAMPLE: I will file today a case for damages arising for quasi-delict. And then one or two
months from now I will amend my complaint from damages arising from culpa aquiliana to damages
arising from culpa contractual. Is that a different cause of action? Yes, so the prescriptive period for
culpa contractual is deemed filed next month, not this month, because that is a different cause of action.

EXAMPLE: But suppose I file a case against you for culpa aquiliana, and my claim is one million.
Next month I amend my complaint for damages from one million pesos to two million pesos. Did I

166
JBD
change my cause of action? No, it is still the same cause of action—culpa aquiliana. Therefore, the
prescriptive period is deemed interrupted as of the date of the filing of the original complaint.

AMENDMENTS TO PLEADINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

Now, the classifications of amendments under the rule on criminal procedure are the same because
there is such a thing as amendments on the criminal complaints or informations as a matter of right on
the part of the prosecution and amendments as a matter of judicial discretion. And under the rules of
criminal procedure, an amendment can either be formal or substantially received. There is some
difference in the rules.

How do you differentiate the amendment of a pleading, under the rules on civil procedure and the
amendment of a criminal complaint or information in criminal cases? Take note that there is no Answer
in criminal cases. The accused is not obliged to file answer but the counterpart of answer in criminal
cases is the plea, where he pleads either guilty or not guilty.

Under the rules on criminal procedure, at anytime before the arraignment or before he enters plea,
the amendment of information is a matter of right, either in form or in substance. EXAMPLE: The
prosecution files an information against you for homicide and then the prosecution wants to agree to
murder. Can it be done? YES, for as long as the accused has not yet entered his plea.

So it is almost the same as in civil cases. For as long as there is no responsive, pleading the
amendment is a matter of right whether in substance or in form.

Q: Now in criminal cases, AFTER the accused had already entered his plea to the original charged,
is amendment still allowed? Can the prosecution still amend?
A: YES. But what is allowed is only formal amendment. Substantial amendment is 100% prohibited
in criminal cases. But in civil cases, puwede.

OBJECTIONS AND DEFENSES NOT RAISED ARE DEEMED WAIVED; EXCEPTION

Sec. 5. Amendment 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. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be
necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues
may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but
failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If
evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the
issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended
and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action
and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may
grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. (5a)

Q: May issues not raised in the pleadings be tried in court during the trial?
A: As a GENERAL RULE, a defendant during the trial is not allowed to prove a defense that is not
raised in the pleadings based on Rule 9, Section 1. The court has no jurisdiction over the issue. That’s
why there is no such thing as surprise defense because a defense that is not raised is deemed waived.

Q: Is there an EXCEPTION to Rule 9, Section 1? Can the rule be relaxed?

A: YES. Section 5 is a relaxation of the rule specifically the first sentence: “when issues not raised
in 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.”

EXAMPLE: In a collection case, the defendant in his answer raised a defense that the money
obtained from the defendants was not a loan but a donation. During the trial, he attempted to prove
that it was a loan but it was already fully paid. So he is now proving the defense of payment. He is
practically changing his defense. If you follow Rule 9, Section 1, that is not allowed.
But suppose the parties during the trial, the plaintiff agrees that the defendant will prove that the
obligation is paid, then it can be done because issues now raised in the pleadings are tried with the

167
JBD
express consent of the parties. They shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the
pleadings.

In the case of implied consent, the best example is when the defendant attempts to prove payment
and the plaintiff FAILED TO OBJECT. So there is now an implied consent by the parties. Therefore, the
case can now be tried in the issue as if they had been raised in the pleadings. That is what we call the
principle of estoppel. The parties are in estoppel because they expressly or impliedly agreed to try an
issue which is not raised in the pleadings. The court will now render judgment and discuss the
evidence and discuss whether the obligation has been paid or not.

So if it happens, the decision will not jibe with the pleadings. If you read the complaint and the
answer, there is no mention of payment but in the decision resolved the case on that issue. The
pleadings are not in harmony with the decision.

Q: So how will you harmonize the two – pleadings and the decision?
A: The remedy according to Section 5 is to amend the pleadings. We can amend the pleadings to
make them conform with the evidence. That is why the law says: “such amendment of the pleadings as
may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon
motion of any party at any time, even after judgment.”

So even after the judgment, you can amend the pleading in order to harmonize with the evidence.
Normally, the evidence should conform to the pleading under Rule 9. In this case, baliktad! – it is the
pleading which is being amended to conform to the evidence. It is the exact opposite.

Normally that is for the benefit of the appellate court in case the decision will be the case will be
appealed. The CA will read the complaint and the answer, “wala mang payment dito!” But when you
read the decision, the main issue was payment not found in the complaint and the answer. So there
might be confusion. So amendment is necessary at anytime, even after judgment.

Q: But suppose the parties never bothered to amend the pleadings, is there a valid judgment?
A: YES because the law says, “but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these
issues.” So, there is a valid trial and the court acquires jurisdiction over the issues because of their
implied or express consent. The best example is FAILURE TO OBJECT.

“if the evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it was not within the issues made by the
pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby.”

EXAMPLE: The defendant during the trial attempted to prove the obligation that it is paid. The
lawyer of the plaintiff is alert and objected thereby, “You cannot prove that defense because you never
raise a defense of payment in your answer.” Is the objection correct? YES because of Rule 9, Section 1.
The court affirmed the plaintiff that one cannot prove the defense of payment because you never raised
it in your answer. There is no express or implied consent.

Q: But the defendant said, “If that is so your honor, may we be allowed to amend our answer so
that we will now raise the defense of payment and prove it in court?” Can the court allow the
defendant to amend his answer in the middle of the trial just to prove a defense that is not raised?
A: The rule says YES, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with
liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be
subserved thereby.

That is why you can say that the power of the court in enforcing the Rules of Court is very wide.
For example, I am the judge and the defendant never raised the issue of payment in his answer and he
is now rising such defense. The plaintiff’s lawyer will now object and alleged that he cannot prove such
defense for he never raised it in his answer. The judge sustained the objection, “You cannot prove a
defense that is never raised in your answer.” Q: Is my ruling correct? A: YES because of Rule 9, Section
1 – objections and defenses not raised in the answer are deemed waived.

168
JBD
 The defendant will now move to be allowed to amend the pleading so that I raised that defense.
The plaintiff will object to the amendment. The judge will ask the plaintiff, “is the obligation paid?”
“NO. The defendant never paid it,” answered the plaintiff. So if the defense is false, why are you
afraid? Anyway, he cannot prove it. So I will allow the amendment.

However, if the plaintiff will answer that the defendant has already paid the obligation but that he
never raised such matter in his answer. The plaintiff now will be in bad faith. So I will allow the
amendment.

So in other words, in any way my ruling is correct because I know how to apply the rule. So the
court will allow the amendment and shall do so with liberality… so LIBERALITY should be the rule on
amendment. Section 5 is a rule more on equity. While, Rule 9, Section 1 is a rule of law. Section 5 is a
relaxation of that law on technicality.

The last sentence, “the court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.”
‘Continuance’ means postponement. It means, postponement of the case to allow the defendant to
amend his answer first.

Part II. SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS

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

The second part of Rule 10 is the supplemental pleading, for the first part is the amended pleadings.

Q: How do you distinguish an AMENDED pleading from a SUPPLEMENTAL pleading?

A: Of course, the similarity between the two is the existence of ORIGINAL PLEADING. The
following are the distinctions:

FIRST DISTINCTION: As to the allegations

An AMENDED pleading contains transactions, occurrences or events which already happened
at the time the original pleading was filed and could have been raised at the original pleading, but
which the pleader failed to raise in the original pleading because, oversight or inadvertence or
inexcusable negligence. If he wants to raise it, he must amend the pleading. Whereas,
A SUPPLEMENTAL pleading contains transactions, occurrences or events which were not in
existence at the time the original pleading was filed but which only happened after the filing of the
original pleading and therefore, could not have been raised in the original pleading.

That is the distinction emphasized in the New Rule – Rule 11, Sections 9 and 10:

Rule 11, Section 9. Counterclaim or crossclaim arising after answer. – A

counterclaim or cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by a party
after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the court, be
presented as a counterclaim or cross-claim by supplemental pleading before
Judgment.

Rule 11, Section 10. Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. – When a

pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a crossclaim through oversight,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he may, by
leave of court, set up the counterclaim or crossclaim by amendment before
judgment.

These provisions emphasize the difference between an amended pleading and a

supplemental pleading – how do you raise a counterclaim or cross-claim which was not raised
earlier? Is it by amending the pleading or by filing d supplemental pleading ? And that applies
also to an answer where the defense or the transaction or the cause of action supervened later.

169
JBD
SECOND DISTINCTION: As to effect
In an AMENDED pleading, the amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. The
original pleading is deemed erased. The amended substitutes the original. So from the viewpoint of
the law, the original pleading no longer exists. Whereas,
When a SUPPLEMENTAL pleading is filed, it does not supersede the original pleading. In
effect, there are now two (2) pleadings which stand side by side in the case – the original and the
supplemental pleadings.

EXAMPLE: Mortz borrowed from Nanding P200,000 payable in 2 yearly installments.

Mortz failed to pay the first installment. Nanding filed a case. While the case is pending, the
other installment became due. Nanding will now file a supplemental pleading and as a
result, there will be two (2) complaints for P100,000 each.

Rule in EVIDENCE: In an amended pleading, all your admissions and evidence no longer
exist because remember under the rules on Evidence, any admission that you make in your
pleading binds you under the doctrine of judicial admission where the evidence need not be
given as if it is taken judicial notice of. The rule is, if a pleading is amended and the amended
pleading does not contain the admissions contained in the original pleading, the judicial
admission is now converted into an extrajudicial admission and therefore the court will no
longer take judicial notice of that.
But if I want to bring it to the attention of the court an admission which is not found there
(in the amended pleading), I have to formally offer in evidence the original pleading. Normally,
you do not offer in evidence a pleading because the court takes judicial notice of everything
stated in there. But if the original pleading is now superseded, the original must be offered in
evidence to prove an admission found in the original but not anymore in the amended one. That
principle in now found in Section 8:

Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. An amended pleading supersedes

the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may
be received in evidence against the pleader; and claims and defenses alleged
therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.

That is related to the rule in evidence that what need not be proved: judicial notice, judicial
admissions.

THIRD DISTINCTION: The filing of an AMENDED pleading could be a matter of right or of

judicial discretion under Sections 2 and 3; whereas
The filing of a SUPPLEMENTAL pleading is always a matter of judicial discretion under Section
6. There is always leave of court.

Now, let us cite cases which are relevant to our topic on supplemental pleadings.

LEOBRERA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

170 SCRA 711

FACTS: Karen went to the bank and obtained a loan – housing loan. A promissory note
was issued payable next year. After few months, Karen went back to the bank and secured a
second loan – agricultural loan with another promissory note.
When the first note became due, Karen failed to pay. So the bank sued Karen on the first
promissory note. When the case was still going on, the second loan became due. So the bank
sought to file a supplemental complaint against Karen to collect the second loan. The
maturity of the second loan happened after the filing of the first pleading sought to be
supplemented.

ISSUE: Is there a proper supplemental complaint?

HELD: NO. It is improper. Although the plaintiff and the defendant are the same, there
are two separate loans independent of each other as a matter of fact the stipulations are not

170
JBD
 identical. It cannot be the subject matter of a supplemental complaint. In this case, there are
many types of loans secured in different terms and conditions.
“A supplemental complaint must based on matters arising subsequent to the original
complaint RELATED to the claim presented therein and founded on the same cause of
action.” It cannot be used to try of another matter or a new cause of action.

A good EXAMPLE for a supplemental complaint is when I borrow money from you for P600,000
payable in three installments. First installment is on February for P200,000; second installment is on
April; and the last installment is on June for the last P200,000. There is no acceleration clause. When
the first installment fell due, I did not pay. So the plaintiff filed a case against me to collect the first
installment. In April, the case is still not yet decided. In fact the second installment again fell due.
Plaintiff moved to file for the supplemental pleading. While the two cases are still pending, the last
installment fell due and again there is failure to pay, so there is another supplemental complaint.
Q: Is that proper?
A: YES because these are not two separate loans but one loan and the installments are interrelated.

SUPERCLEAN SERVICES INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

258 SCRA 165 [1996]

FACTS: Superclean Service Corp. is a company engaged in janitorial services. A

government corporation, the Home Development and Mutual Fund (HDMF) sought a
public bidding on who will be the company who shall provide janitorial services to the
offices of the HDMF for the year 1990.
Superclean won as it was the lowest bidder. It was suppose to start providing the service
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 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 'hem,
The problem was that 1990 already ended and the case was still ongoing. So it was
already rendered moot and academic. 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 relied now consists of unrealized profits, exemplary
damages and attorney’s fees.
So, money claim na lang dahil moot and academic na eh. Instead of pursuing its prayer
for mandamus, Superclean sought the payment of damages to it.

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. [That’s the purpose of the supplemental pleading – in aid of the party’s
cause of action or defense] 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.” You are
actually changing the relief so that the correct remedy is not a supplemental complaint but
an amended complaint.
“Be that as it may, the so-called Supplemental Complaint filed by petitioner should
simply be treated as embodying amendments to the original complaint or petitioner may be
required to file an amended complaint.” So, meaning, you call it a supplemental complaint,

171
JBD
 the court will call it as an amended complaint or the other alternative, require him to file an
amended complaint.

Sec. 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. (7a)

When a party files an amended pleading, the amendments should be indicated by appropriated
marks, normally, the amended portion is underlined.

EXAMPLE: A party would to insert an entirely new paragraph. That paragraph would be
underlined. The purpose for such marking is for the court and the opposing party to immediately see
and detect the amendment. If no appropriated mark is provided the court and the lawyer has to
compare everything, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, line by line. Now, if there are
underlines, the court will just concentrate on the underlined portion. This is for convenience for the
parties and the court.

Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. An amended pleading supersedes the

pleading that it amends. However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be
received in evidence against the pleader; and claims and defenses alleged
therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.

(Section 8: See discussion on Section 6 on distinctions between an amended and supplemental

pleading; second distinction)

The first sentence is one of the distinctions between an amended pleading and a supplement
pleading. From procedural viewpoint, the original pleading is already non-existent. The court will no
longer consider anything stated there.

EXAMPLE: You say something favorable to me. However, in his amended pleading, he removes
such statement, so that the court will not consider it anymore. Such statement is out of the picture.
Now, if you want to bring to the attention of the court the statement found in the original pleading, you
must offer the original pleading in evidence to consider it all over again. This rule will be considered in
the study of EVIDENCE.

<

172
JBD