Section 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. (Rule 10, Rules of Court)

What is a supplemental pleading?

Supplemental pleading is one which sets forth transactions, occurrences, or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.


What is the purpose in allowing supplemental pleading?

● The purpose of the rule is that the entire controversy might be settled in one action; to avoid unnecessary litigation; prevent delay, unnecessary repetition of effort; unwarranted expense of litigants; to broaden the scope of the issues in an action owing to the light thrown on it by facts, events and occurrences which have accrued after the filing of the original pleading; to bring into record the facts enlarging or charging the kind of relief to which plaintiff is entitled. It is the policy of the law to grant relief as far as possible for wrongs complained of growing out of the same transaction and thus put an end to litigation. (Sps. Lambino vs. Presiding Judge, G.R. No. 169551, January 24, 2007)
● The rule is a useful device which enables the court to award complete relief in one action and to avoid the cost delay and waste of separate action.


Does filing of supplemental pleading requires leave of court? What are some of the factors that the court will consider in allowing a supplemental pleading?

Yes. The filing of supplemental pleadings requires leave of court. The court may allow the pleading only motion with notice to all parties and upon such terms as are just. [Example: Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint] (Rule 10, Sec. 6)

The admission or non-admission of a supplemental pleading is not a matter of right but is discretionary on the court. Among the factors that the court will consider are: (1) resulting prejudice to the parties; and (2) whether the movant would be prejudiced if the supplemental pleading were to be denied. What constitutes prejudice to the opposing party depends upon the particular circumstance of each case. An opposing party who has had notice of the general nature of the claim or matter asserted in the supplemental pleading from the beginning of the action will not be prejudiced by the granting of leave to file a supplemental pleading. A motion for leave to file a supplemental pleading may be denied if he is guilty of undue delay or laches which causes substantial prejudice to the opposing party. (Sps. Lambino vs. Presiding Judge)


When should it be answered?

A supplemental pleading should be answered within 10 days from the notice of the order admitting the same,  unless a different period is fixed by the court. (Rule 13, Sec. 7)


What would be the basis of the adverse party in filing an answer to the supplemental pleading?

Under Rule 15, Sec. 9, a motion for leave to file a pleading or motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or motion sought to be admitted. So the motion carries a copy of the supplemental pleading. When the adverse party received the order admitting the supplemental pleading, he already had with him a copy of the supplemental pleading. That is why, the 10 day period is counted from the receipt of the order admitting the supplemental pleading. 


Does the failure of a party to answer a supplemental complaint a ground to declare him in default?

No. Because the answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or supplemental answer is filed. (Rule 13, Sec. 7)


Does the supplemental pleading supersede the original pleading?

No. As its very name denotes, a supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or add something to the primary pleading. A supplemental pleading exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it supplements. (Young vs. Sps. Sy, G.R. No. 157745, September 26, 2006)

A supplemental complaint/pleading supplies deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, not to entirely substitute the latter.


Can a party file a supplemental pleading although the facts occur before the commencement of the suit?

Although the facts occur before the commencement of the suit if a party does not learn of their existence until after he has filed his pleading, he may file a supplemental pleading. (Sps. Lambino vs. Presiding Judge)


Should the cause of action in the supplemental complaint/pleading be the same as that stated in the original complaint/pleading?

● The cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint must be the same as that stated in the original complaint. Otherwise, the court should not admit the supplemental complaint. [Asset Privatization Trust v. CA (1998)]

● A supplemental complaint must be consistent with, and in aid of, the cause of action set forth in the original complaint. A new and independent cause of action cannot be set up by such complaint. The supplemental complaint must be based on matters arising subsequent to the original complaint related to the claim or defense presented therein, and founded on the same cause of action. (Sps. Lambino vs. Presiding Judge)

● As its very name denotes, a supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or add something to the primary pleading. A supplemental pleading exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it supplements. Moreover, a supplemental pleading assumes that the original pleading is to stand and that the issues joined with the original pleading remained an issue to be tried in the action. It is but a continuation of the complaint. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original complaint. (Young vs. Sps. Sy)

● When the cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint is different from the causes of action mentioned in the original complaint, the court should not admit the supplemental complaint; the parties may file supplemental pleadings only to supply deficiencies in aid of an original pleading, but not to introduce new and independent causes of action. However, in Planters Development Bank v. LZK Holdings and Development Co., the Court held that a broad definition of causes of action should be applied: while a matter stated in a supplemental complaint should have some relation to the cause of action set forth in the original pleading, the fact that the supplemental pleading technically states a new cause of action should not be a bar to its allowance but only a factor to be considered by the court in the exercise of its discretion; and of course, a broad definition of cause of action should be applied here as elsewhere. (Young vs. Sps. Sy)

● A supplemental pleading may raise a new cause of action as long as it has some relation to the original cause of action set forth in the original complaint. (Ada vs. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, August 13, 2012)