Rule 10: Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

Asset Privatization Trust v. CA (Feb. 3, 2000)

Facts:
Galleon Shipping Corp. obtained several foreign loan guarantee accommodations from DBP. Galleon failed to
pay so DBP foreclosed the mortgage, but the proceeds of the auction after EJ foreclosure yielded deficiency. In
anticipation of DBP’s claim for the deficiency, SIM, Cuenca, Tinio lodged complaint against DBP, NDC, and Galleon
before RTC Makati for issuance of TRO. SIM filed Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint, alleging DBP’s taking
possession was a violation of the WPI. Sought to declare that DBP not entitled to foreclose mortgage.

Issue:
Whether or not the filing of a supplemental complaint involving basically the same parties as those in the original
complaint arising from a transaction distinct from that sued upon in the original complaint.

Held:
Yes. Supplemental pleading is meant to supply deficiencies in aid of the orig pleading and not to dispense with or
substitute the latter. It is not like an amended pleading which is a substitute for the orig one. It does not supersede the
orig, but assumes the original pleading is to stand. The issues joined under the orig pleading remain as issues to be tried
in the action. The cause of action stated in the supplemental complaint must be the same as that stated in the court
should not admit the supplemental complaint.

Rule 11: When to File Responsive Pleadings

Aberca v. Ver ( March 14, 2012)

Facts:
 While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the so-called EDSA revolution took place. As a result, the
defendants-appellants lost their official positions and were no longer in their respective office addresses as appearing in
the record. Plaintiffs-appellees’ request was approved to serve the notice to file answer or responsive pleading by
publication. However, no answer was filed by defendants-appellants within the period stated in the notice.

Issue:
Whether or not the constitutional right to procedural due process was properly observed or was
unacceptably violated when the respondents were declared in default for failing to file their answer
within the prescribed period.

Held:
Yes. The basic rules on modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and
other papers are mandatory in nature and, therefore, must be strictly observed. The Court is not unaware
of the inherent power of courts to control its proceedings. Nonetheless, the exercise of such inherent
power must not violate basic court procedures. More importantly, it must not disregard one’s basic
constitutional right to procedural due process.