PPA v.WG&A GR No.

158401 Facts: -After the expiration of lease contract of Veterans Shipping Corp over th Marine Slip Way in North Harbor on Dec 31 2000, William Gothong & Aboitiz requestee Ph il Ports Authority to br allowed to leaseand operate said facility. Pres Estrada issued memo addressed to Sec of DOTC ang Gen Mgr of PPA approving request of WG &A to lease MSW from Jan 1 to June 30 2001 or until such time that PPA turns ove r its operations to winning bidder for North Harbor Modernization Proj. 1. Period of lease 2. Monthly rental P12.15 per sq m or P886,950 monthly 3. Structures and improvemrnts turned over to PPA 4. Water elec tel other utility exp for acct of WG&A 5. Real estate tax/insurance govt dues and charges - WG&A - PPA believing said lease expired on June 30 2001, sent letter to WG&A directi ng to vacate not later than Nov 31 2001 and to turnover improvements made therei n - WG&A in response: reconsider decision to eject, PPA denied - WG&A commenced injunction suit before RTC Manila. 1. PPA unjustly, illegally and prematurely terminated lease contract. 2. Prayed for issuance of TRO to arrest evacuation. 3. Recovery of damages for breach of contract and attys fees - WG&A 1ST AMENDMENT: 1. Complaint still denominated as one for Injunction w/ TRO. 2. Incorporated statements to the effect that PPA is already estopped from denying correct period of lease is "until such time..." 3. Included third COA: addl relief in prayer that should prtitoner be forced to vacate, it should be deemed as entitlrd to be refund of the value of the improvements it introduced in the leased prop -PPA responded to 1ST AMENDMENT - RTC: denied TRO - WG&A moved for recon and filed MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT: 1. caption: Injunction with Prayer for TRO and/or writ of prelim injunction and damages and/or for reformation of contract, 2. 4th COA and addl relief: reformation of contract as it failed to express true intent of the contracting parties - PPA opposed the admission of the 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT - reformation sought co nstituted substantial amendment w/c if granted will alter COA and theory of case - Judge denied admission of 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT - WG&A filed petition for certiorari w/ CA seeking nullification of RTC orders - CA: granted WG&A's petition, setting aside orders of RTC and directing RTC to admit 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT pursuant to Sec 3, Rule 10 ROC - PPA moved for recon, denied Issue: WON RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied admission of 2ND AMEN DED COMPLAINT Held: YES - RTC applied old Sec 3, Rule 10 ROC instead of 1997 Rules of Civ Pro: amended former rule in such manner that the phrase "or that the coa or defense is substa ntially altered" was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. The clear i mport of such amendment in Sec 3, Rule 10 is that under new rules, "the amendmen t may (now) substantially alter coa or defense." this should only be true, howev er, when despite a substantial chang or alteration in the coa or defense, the am endments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justi ce, and prevent delay and equally promote laudable objectives of the rules w/c i s to secure a "just speedy and inexpensive disposition of every actionand procee

ding.