ADERITO YUJUICO v UNITED RESOURCES ASSET in another case on conducting any further proceedings on

MANAGEMENT, INC., ATTY. RICHARD NETHERCOTT and the instant case. The TRO was only lifted on October 13,
ATTY. HONORATO MATABAN (2015) 2008.

Perez, J. January 26, 2009 – URAMI changed counsel.

TOPIC Rule 10 February 23, 2009 – URAMI, under new counsel, filed an
Amended Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, alleging:

I. FACTS: • It still vouched for the dismissal of the complaint

• But reneged on its previous admissions under the
Strategic Alliance Development Corporation (STRADEC) is original Answer, now claiming that the auction sale
a business development and investment company. It was valid and Atty. Nethercott was authorized to
contracted a loan with United Resources Asset initiate the sale
Management, Inc. (URAMI), but it failed to comply with its
obligations under said loan. Yujuico opposed the Amended Answer claiming that
URAMI filed the Amended Answer without securing leave of
Several STRADEC stockholders executed Pledge court. RTC ultimately granted said motion on this basis.
Agreements, whereby they pledged a certain amount of
their stocks in URAMI’s favor. One of these stockholders is September 21, 2009 – URAMI filed a motion for leave of
Aderito Yujuico. court, officially asking the RTC to file the Amended Answer
explaining that the original Answer under the previous
June 18, 2004 – STRADEC and the stockholders received a counsel does not bear truthful and factual allegations and
NOTICE informing them of the impending auction sale of not supported by evidence on record.
the pledged stocks from Atty. Richard Nethercott, who
claimed to be URAMI’s attorney-in-fact. The RTC granted URAMI’s motion so Yujuico appealed to
the CA. The CA sustained the RTC’s Order.
June 21, 2004 – Yujuico filed an injunction complaint in
RTC Pasig seeking to enjoin the sale at public auction. In this appeal, Yujuico alleges:
Impleaded are URAMI, Atty. Nethercott, and Atty. Honorato
• URAMI had not shown that the admissions on the
Mataban, the notary public. He alleged that the Pledge
original Answer were made through “palpable
Agreements are void ffor many fatal defects; one of which
mistake,” as required in Sec. 4 of Rule 129
is the lack of authority of Atty. Nethercott, who is neither
counsel nor agent of URAMI, nor the authorized • The amended Answer was a mere ploy to delay
proceedings (since it was filed 2 years after the
representative indicated in the Loan Agreement.
original Answer)
June 23, 2004 – RTC did not issue a TRO so the auction
pushed through with URAMI as the highest bidder.
II. PROCEDURE SUMMARY:
July 5, 2004 – RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction,
preventing URAMI from appropriating the stocks it Action Filed By Venue Decision
purchased. Atty. Nethercott filed an Answer on the same Injunction Yujuico RTC Pasig Only
day, denying the allegations. Complaint granted
after the
April 21, 2006 – It was only more than a year later when auction
URAMI was able to file a motion for leave to file an Answer. sale
RTC granted the motion and URAMI thereafter filed an Motion for URAMI RTC Pasig Granted
Answer praying for dismissal of the injunction and alleging: Leave to File
Answer
• It agrees with Yujuico that Atty. Nethercott was Motion for Yujuico RTC Pasig Deferred
never authorized to cause the sale of the pledged Summary
stocks Judgment
Amended URAMI RTC Pasig Granted
• However, due to this, it cannot be held liable for any
Answer with
prejudice to the stockholders for such sale Compulsory
Counterclaim
May 29, 2007 – Yujuico filed a motion for summary
Motion for URAMI RTC Pasig Granted
judgment in view of URAMI’s admissions, there being no
Leave to File
longer a genuine issue left to be resolved at trial. The Amended
resolution, however, was put on hold as the SC issued a TRO Answer with
 Compulsory to pleadings, especially those made before the conduct of
Counterclaim trial.
Appeal Yujuico CA Denied
Appeal Yujuico SC Denied It should be remembered that the rules of procedure are
mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
Their application should never be allowed to frustrate the
III. ISSUES: truth and the promotion of substantial justice.
WON the Amended Answer should be allowed? – YES. To succumb to Yujuico’s arguments would’ve sanctioned
an outcome totally inconsistent with the underlying purpose
IV. RATIONALE: of our procedural laws.

Matters involving amendment of pleadings are primarily

governed by Rule 10 and not Sec. 4 of Rule 129 V. DISPOSITIVE:
Allegations (and admissions) in a pleading — even if not Petition DENIED.
shown to be made through "palpable mistake" — can still be
corrected or amended provided that the amendment is
sanctioned under Rule 10.

Even if Sec. 4 of Rule 129 was applied here, the Court still
found the allowance of URAMI's amended answer proper
considering that the evidence that URAMI plans to present
during trial reveal that the admissions made by URAMI
under its original answer were clear and patent mistake.

One of this evidence is the Board Resolution of URAMI

showing Atty. Nethercott’s authority to cause foreclosure of
the pledged stocks. It was only thus fair that they be given
a chance to rectify the mistakes in the original Answer.

Amended answer was not filed to further delay proceedings

The amended Answer aims to correct certain allegations of

fact in the original answer which are crucial to a full and
proper disposition of the case. It is in the best interest of
justice and equity that URAMI should be allowed to file the
amended answer.

Just because URAMI filed motion for leave after the original
Answer is not enough to discredit amended Answer

The delay between the filing of the motion for leave and the
filing of the original Answer is not purely attributable to
URAMI.

It must be remembered that some time after the original

answer was filed, the SC issued a TRO that effectively
suspended the proceedings in this case for more than a
year. Thus, even if it wanted to, URAMI really could not have
filed a motion for leave to file amended answer sooner than
it already had.

When it was lifted, it only took URAMI a little over 3 months

after to replace its previous counsel of record and to file its
amended answer.

The grant of leave here is consistent with the time-honored

judicial policy of affording liberal treatment to amendments