Before a responsive pleading is served, may amendment be made to correct a jurisdictional defect?
A fair reading of jurisprudence recognizes the right of a pleader to amend his complaint before a responsive pleading is served even if its effect is to correct a jurisdictional defect. The argument that the court cannot allow such type of amendment since the court must first possess jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint before it can act on any amendment has no application upon an amendment that is made as matter of right.
In one case involving a litigation over a parcel of land, the complaint filed with the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), a complaint alleging forcible entry. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the court has no jurisdiction over an action for forcible entry. Without waiting for the resolution of the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint with new allegations which transformed the original allegations of forcible entry into an action for quieting of title, an action which at that time was solely cognizable by the Court of First Instance. The trial court admitted the amended complaint, ordered the defendants to answer it and denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court sustained the trial court as being consistent with the purpose and spirit of the Rules.
In another case filed before the City Court of Manila to recover unpaid rentals with a prayer that an order be issued for the surrender of the premises by the defendant to the plaintiff', the defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the amount sought to be recovered is beyond the jurisdiction of the court and that there are no allegations in the complaint showing that the defendant was unlawfully withholding the premises from the plaintiff. Before action could be taken on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff amended the complaint, to include the requisite allegations. The court denied the motion to dismiss and the opposition to the amended complaint. The court ruled that since no responsive pleading was served at the time of the amendment, the plaintiff had done so as a matter of course. Reiterating the rule that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading, the Supreme Court sustained the trial court.
After a responsive pleading is served, may amendment be made to correct a jurisdictional defect?
An amendment of the complaint to correct a jurisdictional error cannot be validly done after a responsive pleading is served. The amendment this time would require leave of court, a matter which requires the exercise of sound judicial discretion. The exercise of this discretion requires the performance of a positive act by the court. If it grants the amendment, it would be acting on a complaint over which it has no jurisdiction. Its action would be one performed without jurisdiction.
In one case, a former employee filed an action for recovery of compensation for unpaid holiday and overtime services with the then Court of Industrial Relations against his former employer. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss but was denied. The employer then filed an answer invoking as one of its affirmative defenses lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter since the complaint did not allege the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. The complaint alleged neither illegal dismissal nor seeks for the reinstatement of the plaintiff. Realizing, a jurisdictional error, the plaintiff filed leave to amend his complaint and to admit an amended pleading alleging illegal dismissal and a claim for reinstatement. Speaking on the issue of the propriety of the admission of the amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that a "complaint cannot be amended to confer jurisdiction on the court in which it was filed, if the cause of action originally set forth was not within the court's jurisdiction" Note that in Campos Rueda, an answer has already been served and filed.
- Similarly, in an action for damages filed before the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) against a sheriff for an alleged illegal levy upon the property of the plaintiff, the latter sought to amend his complaint after an answer has been served by the defendant. The amendment was made when the plaintiff realized that the amount alleged as damages was below the jurisdiction of the court. The Supreme Court held that it was error to admit the amendment because the court must first acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint in order to act validly on the same including its amendment.
Bar Question
On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the collection of P250,000.00. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the action since the claimed amount of P250,000.00 is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City.
Before the court could resolve the motion, the plaintiff, without leave of court, amended his complaint to allege a new cause of action consisting in the inclusion of an additional amount of P200,000.00, thereby increasing his total claim to P450,000.00 The plaintiff thereafter filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over his action.
Rule on the motion of the defendant with reasons. (Bar 2005)
Suggested answer.
The motion to dismiss should be denied. The amendment was made before a responsive pleading was served on the plaintiff. The pending motion to dismiss did not affect the right of the plaintiff to amend his complaint as a matter of right because a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. The amendment correcting a jurisdictional defect was proper because no responsive pleading has been served at the time of the amendment. The rule that a complaint cannot be amended to confer jurisdiction on a court where there was none applies only to an amendment made after a responsive pleading has been served.
0 Comments
Post a Comment