Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 14, 2006

G.R. No. 148436 (Matilde S. Belo, Petitioner, versus Far East Bank and Trust Co., Respondent.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated January 31, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58993.

On May 7, 1999, the Far East Bank & Trust Company,[2] (FEBTC) respondent, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 146, Makati City, a complaint for a sum of money against Matilde S. Belo, petitioner, docketed as Civil Case No 99-963. Respondent bank alleged therein that sometime in September 1994, petitioner applied for an International Mastercard. The bank approved her application and she was issued Mastercard No. 5404-8902-0650-5161 which she used on several occasions. In the process, her unpaid balance reached US$21,512.92. Despite demands, she failed to pay the same. Respondent then prayed that petitioner be ordered to pay the sum of P1,097,834.93, inclusive of penalties and interest due.

On October 4, 1999, petitioner filed her answer to the complaint denying specifically the allegations therein. She claimed that she did not apply for a credit card with respondent bank and that she did not receive or use Mastercard No. 5404-8902-0650-5161. Hence, she could not be held liable for the amount of P1,097,834.93.

On December 12, 1999, respondent bank filed with the trial court a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Complaint alleging that petitioner's unpaid obligation under Mastercard No. 5404-8902-0650-5161 is P958,834.93, not P1,097,834.93; that on February 2, 1994, she applied for and was granted a local credit card with Account No. 1001-959-671; and that she utilized this card and incurred an unpaid obligation of P349,915.01.

On December 8, 1999, petitioner filed her Opposition to respondent's motion, alleging that it could no longer substantially amend its original complaint; and that the second cause of action is premature since respondent bank has not made any demand to pay.

On December 10, 1999, the trial court issued an Older granting respondent's motion and admitting respondent's amended complaint.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the trial court in an Order dated May 5, 2000, prompting petitioner to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58993. In the main, petitioner claimed that in issuing the Orders dated December 10, 1999 and May 5, 2000, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion.

On January 31, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision dismissing the petition.

Petitioner then filed a motion for a reconsideration, but in a Resolution dated June 5, 2001, the appellate court denied the same.

Hence, the instant recourse.

The core issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in admitting the amended complaint in Civil Case No. 99-963.

Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides:

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 be speedily determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.

SEC. 2. Amendment 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.

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.

The above Ride was taken from Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1964 Rules of Court which reads:

SEC. 3. Amendments by leave of court. - After the case is set for hearing, substantial amendments may be made only upon leave of court. Bui such leave may be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to delay the action or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered. 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.

It will be observed that the old and the new Rules allow substantial amendments of pleadings upon leave of court. These Rules authorize the courts to be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings in furtherance of justice. The rationale behind this liberality is to avoid multiplicity of suits and allow the real controversies between the parties to be presented, so that their rights may be determined and their case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay.[3]

Amendments are not proper and should be denied when (1) delay would arise; (2) amendments would result in a change of cause of action or theory of the case; or (3) would be inconsistent with the allegations in the original complaint.[4] In Ching v. Court of Appeals,[5] we held that the granting of leave to file amended pleadings is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court and such discretion should not be disturbed on appeal, absent evident abuse thereof. None of these grounds are present in the instant case. Thus, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in admitting respondent's amended complaint.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58993. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

[1] Rollo, pp. 87-105. Per Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona (all retired).

[2] Merged with the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

[3] Contech Construction Technology & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79903, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 692, 696.

[4] Ng v. Soco, G.R. No. 149132, May 9, 2002, 382 SCRA 243, 247, citing Ching v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 16 (2000).

[5] G.R. No. 110844, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 16.