G.R. No. L-28297 March 30, 1970 ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. D. O. PLAZA ENTERPRI E , IN!., defendant-appellee.

Direct appeal, on points of law, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 4676 , modif!in" an earlier decision for the plaintiff #! reducin" the rate of interest on the sum ad$ud"ed, and also the attorne!%s fees& and #! orderin" the plaintiff to pa! dama"es to the defendant on account of a preliminar! attachment o#tained #! the former upon the latter%s counterclaim. 'he complaint in the aforesaid civil case was for collection of the sum of (4),*+7.) representin" #alance due on purchases of wire ropes, tractors and diesel parts made #! the defendant-appellee, D. ,. (la-a .nterprises, Inc., from the plaintiff-appellant, .lpidio /avellana. 'he complaint pra!ed that the defendant #e ordered to pa! the said sum of (4),*+7.) , with le"al interest, plus attorne!%s fees in the sum of (0,***.**& it also pra!ed for a writ of preliminar! attachment. 1pon plaintiff%s puttin" up a #ond, the trial court, on +0 2pril +36+, issued a writ of attachment. ,n * Ma! +36+, the defendant moved to dischar"e the attachment on the "round that it was improperl! issued. 'he motion was denied. ,n 7 Novem#er +36+, the defendant filed its answer and counter-claimed for dama"es arisin" from the attachment. 'he plaintiff answered and interposed a counterclaim to the counterclaim. 2fter some !ears, or on 7 2pril +366, the defendant moved for the dissolution of the preliminar! attachment. 1pon its filin" a counter#ond, the court, on 7 Ma! +366, dissolved the attachment. ,n ) Novem#er +366, the plaintiff filed a motion to admit his amended complaint, which the court "ranted on + Novem#er +366. In this amended complaint, the plaintiff averred that of the sum of (4),*+7.) alle"ed in the ori"inal complaint, the defendant has paid (),3**.**, there#! leavin" a #alance of ()3,++7.) unpaid, #ut that, as indicated #! invoices, defendant%s purchases were pa!a#le within thirt! 4)*5 da!s and were to #ear interest of + 6 per annum plus 06 attorne!%s fees. 'he amended complaint accordin"l! pra!ed for the increased amounts. Defendant did not answer this amended complaint. 2fter trial, the court, on +0 /une +367, rendered $ud"ment. It found the followin" facts7 .... Durin" the period from ) /ul! +303 to )* /ul! +36*, defendant, in a series of transactions, purchased from plaintiff wire ropes, tractors and diesel spare parts, 4in5 pa!ment for which he issued several chec8s amountin" to (4),*+7.) , which, when presented to the #an8, were dishonored for lac8 of funds. Defendant su#stituted these chec8s with another set of chec8s for the same amount, #ut a"ain, the same were dishonored for lac8 of funds, as evidenced #! .9hi#its 2 to M, e9cept for one

chec8 in the amount of (),3**.** as evidenced #! .9hi#it C. 'hus, the principal o#li"ation was reduced to ()3,++7.) . 2t the time of the issuance of the said chec8s, the defendant never informed plaintiff that it had funds to #ac8 them up. (laintiff made demands to defendant for pa!ment, #ut defendant pleaded for time and li#erali-ation of pa!ment, which was re$ected #! the plaintiff. 'he transactions in :uestion were covered #! invoices listed in .9hi#it (, a sample of which is evidenced #! .9hi#it C, wherein said transactions were for )*-da! term, + 6 interest per annum to #e char"ed from date of invoice, and 06 attorne!%s fees in case of liti"ation. 'he defendant claims that there were other transactions #etween plaintiff and defendant involvin" the amount of (+36,; ;.0;& that it had no intention not to pa! the chec8s it issued upon presentment& and that it suffered dama"es in the amount of (+4,;**.** #! reason of the attachment. 999 999 999 'he counterclaim for dama"es arisin" from the attachment is without merit. 'he defendant was manifestl! in #ad faith when it issued two sets of #ouncin" chec8s. <ence, the attachment was not improper, contrar! to defendant%s claim. 'he dispositive portion of the decision decreed7 =<.>.F,>., $ud"ment is here#! rendered for the plaintiff and a"ainst the defendant, orderin" the latter to pa! the former the sum of ()3,++7.) with interest at + 6 per annum from +4 2pril +36+, the date of the filin" of the ori"inal complaint, until final pa!ment, plus 06 of the principal inde#tedness as attorne!%s fees and costs of suit. 'he counterclaim as well as the counterclaim to the counter claim are here#! dismissed for lac8 of merit. ,n ; /une +367, the defendant moved to reconsider. ,ver the o#$ection of the plaintiff, the court issued an order dated +* 2u"ust +367, now the su#$ect of the present appeal, modif!in" the previous decision, in the manner followin"7 =<.>.F,>., the dispositive part of the decision rendered in this case is here#! modified as follows7 4a5 ?! orderin" the defendant to pa! plaintiff the sum of ()3,++7. * plus the le"al interest therein from the filin" of the complaint until the amount is full! paid. 4#5 ,rderin" the plaintiff to pa! defendant the sum of (+6,+3*.**, the amount of dama"es suffered #! the defendant on account of the preliminar! attachment of the defendant& and

4c5 ?! orderin" the defendant to pa! (0,***.** as attorne!%s fees. =ithout pronouncement as to costs. (laintiff-appellant assi"ns the followin" errors7 the reduction of the attorne!%s fees, the reduction of the interest, and the "rant to the defendant of dama"es arisin" from the attachment. 'he first two assi"ned errors are well ta8en. 'he court a quo reduced the interest stated in its previous decision from + 6 to mere le"al interest and the attorne!%s fees from 06 to (0,***.** on the #asis of estoppel, the "round therefor #ein" that the reduced amounts were those alle"ed, hence admitted, #! the plaintiff in his ori"inal complaint. 'his was error. 'he ori"inal complaint was not formall! offered in evidence. <avin" #een amended, the ori"inal complaint lost its character as a $udicial admission, which would have re:uired no proof, and #ecame merel! an e9tra$udicial admission, the admissi#ilit! of which, as evidence, re:uires its formal offer. (leadin"s superseded or amended disappear from the record as $udicial admissions. <owever, an! statement contained therein ma! #e considered as an e9tra$udicial admission, and as such, in order that the court ma! ta8e it into consideration, it should #e offered formalit! in evidence. 40 Moran 0;, citin" @ucido v. Calupitan, 7 (hil. +4;& ?astida v. Men-i, 0; (hil. +;;.5 =here amended pleadin"s have #een filed, alle"ations in the ori"inal pleadin"s can have no effect, unless formall! offered in evidence. 4/ones on .vidence, Aec. 7).5 Aince the record does not show that the complaint 4mar8ed as .9hi#it ++05 was admitted in evidence, there is no proof of estoppel on the part of the plaintiff on his alle"ations in the complaint. Not onl! this, #ut since the stipulation for + 6 interest on #alance due and the 06 counsel fees appear on the invoices themselves, appellee (la-a .nterprises cannot fairl! claim that it was deceived or misled #! the pleadin"s of appellant. .ven more, the ori"inal plea for (0,***.** as attorne!%s fees is onl! contained in the pra!er of the ori"inal complaint, and it is a well esta#lished rule that the pra!er for relief, althou"h part of the complaint, is no part of the cause of action and does not "ive character, the plaintiff #ein" entitled to as much relief as the facts warrant 4>osales vs. >e!es, 0 (hil. 430& 2"uilar vs. >u#iato, 4* (hil. 47*5. ?ut the appellant%s last assi"ned error is without merit. 2lthou"h the defendant was found to #e in #ad faith in issuin" two 4 5 sets of #ouncin" chec8s in pa!ment for its inde#tedness, such #ad faith was not related to his havin" incurred the o#li"ation in favor of the plaintiff #ut to defendant%s failure to perform said o#li"ation. 'here was, therefore, no "round for the plaintiff to attach the defendant%s properties on the "round of fraud. 'hat the plaintiff acted in "ood faith in securin" attachment does not relieve him from the dama"es that the defendant sustained #! reason of the attachment #ecause he, the plaintiff, was, in the first place, not entitled to attachments, the element of malice was unnecessar! 4) Moran, >ules of Court, +35.

F,> '<. F,>.B,INB >.2A,NA, the appealed order is here#! reversed insofar as it reduced the amount of attorne!%s fees and the interest on the principal sum ad$ud"ed in the ori"inal decision dated +0 /une +367& #ut the order is affirmed in all other respects. No costs.