Scribd
Upload
169 views1 page

PH Ports Authority vs. William Gothong & Aboitiz (WG&A), Inc., 542 SCRA 514, G.R. No. 158401 January 28, 2008 Facts

The case involved a dispute between PH Ports Authority (PPA) and William Gothong & Aboitiz (WG&A) over a breach of contract. WG&A filed multiple amended complaints against PPA seeking damages and injunctive relief. The regional trial court (RTC) initially denied WG&A's request to further amend its complaint, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court then ruled that under the applicable Rule 10, Section 3 of the Rules of Court at the time, the RTC should have allowed the second amended complaint as substantial amendments could be made with leave of the court.

Uploaded by

carol anne
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
169 views1 page

PH Ports Authority vs. William Gothong & Aboitiz (WG&A), Inc., 542 SCRA 514, G.R. No. 158401 January 28, 2008 Facts

The case involved a dispute between PH Ports Authority (PPA) and William Gothong & Aboitiz (WG&A) over a breach of contract. WG&A filed multiple amended complaints against PPA seeking damages and injunctive relief. The regional trial court (RTC) initially denied WG&A's request to further amend its complaint, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court then ruled that under the applicable Rule 10, Section 3 of the Rules of Court at the time, the RTC should have allowed the second amended complaint as substantial amendments could be made with leave of the court.

Uploaded by

carol anne
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Rule 10, Section 3

PH Ports Authority vs. William Gothong & Aboitiz (WG&A), Inc., 542 SCRA 514, G.R. No. 158401
January 28, 2008

Facts:

WG&A filed an injunction praying for the issuance of TRO as well as recovery of damages for
breach of contract against PPA.

WG&A amended its complaint for the first time. It was still denominated as one for injunction w/
prayer for TRO. The TRO was denied by the RTC. Shortly thereafter, WG&A again submitted a second
amended complaint which was already captioned as one for Injunction w/ Prayer for TRO and/ or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and damages and/or for reformation of contract. Petitioner opposed and argued
that the reformation, if granted, will substantially alter respondent’s cause of action and theory of the
case. RTC denied the second amended complaint which was reversed by the CA.

Issue:

Whether the second amended complaint be admitted by the RTC.

Ruling:

Yes. The RTC applied the old Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court to wit:

“SECTION 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.”

You might also like