3, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure amended the former
rule by deleting the phrase “or that the cause of action or defense is substantially altered.” Hence, the amendment may now substantially alter the cause of action or defense. This should only be true, however, when the amendments sought to be made serve the higher interests of substantial justice and prevent delay.1 (b) amendment of the complaint may be allowed even if an order for its dismissal has been issued so long as the motion to amend is filed before the order of dismissal acquired finality. However, an amendment is not allowed where the court of origin had no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon the court.2
A pleading subsequently filed after an original one which states a totally
different cause of action is not a “supplemental pleading” and is not permitted.3
1 Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131175, August 28, 2001 2 Sps. Tirona vs. Hon. Alejo, G.R. No. 129313, 10 October 2001. 3 Soriano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100633, 28 August 2001.
In Re Parklane/atlanta Joint Venture, Debtor. Parklane Hosiery Company, Inc. v. Parklane/atlanta Venture, James D. Silvers, 927 F.2d 532, 11th Cir. (1991)
United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Goodman Manufacturing Company, Lee-Norse Company and Galis Electric and MacHine Company, 320 F.2d 509, 3rd Cir. (1963)
Marvin Brown v. New Mexico District Court Clerks Vicki Akenhead, Managing Reporter Annette G. Aragon and Viola W. Lewis, Official Court Reporters, 141 F.3d 1184, 10th Cir. (1998)