WHEN ARE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS ALLOWED?

Question: Can amendments to pleadings be made even the cause of action or defense may be altered? 

Answer: Yes. However, it is always upon leave of Court. To be allowed, the substantial amendment must not be intended to delay the proceedings but will rather serve the higher interest of justice as when it is meant to present the full and actual merits of the case.

Rule 10 of the Rules of Court provides that:

SECTION 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.

Take note that Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court applies to pleadings in general, whether it be initiatory like a complaint or a responsive one like an answer. 

In Valenzuela v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 131175, August28, 2001, it was emphasized as follows:

Interestingly, Section 3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the former rule in such manner that the phrase “or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered” was stricken-off and not retained in the new rules. The clear import of such amendment in Section 3, Rule10 is that under the new rules, “the amendment may (now) substantially alter the cause of action or defense.” This should only be true, however, when despite a substantial change or alteration in the cause of action or defense, the amendments sought to be made shall serve the higher interests of substantial justice, and prevent delay and equally promote the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a “just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.”

            This instructive pronouncement of the High Court was again revisited in the case of Tiu vs. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 151932, August 19, 2009, wherein it was held that “even if the amendment substantially alters the cause of action or defense, such amendment could still be allowed when it is sought to serve the higher interest of substantial justice; prevent delay; and secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of actions and proceedings.” In the same case, it was further emphasized that amendments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of justice in order that every case, may so far as possible, be determined on its real facts and in order to speed up the trial of the case or prevent the circuity of action and unnecessary expense.