Flexi-Homes Ninoy Aquino Pilot Community Tricycle Operators and Drivers Association v. Nacua

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 08-94-4851. February 7, 1995.] FLEXI-HOMES NINOY AQUINO PILOT COMMUNITY (NAPICO) TRICYCLE OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (FH-NAPICO TODA) ITS board of trustees, FRANCISCO DIVINO, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . ROMEO NACUA, ET AL. , respondents . O R D E R For consideration are undated Motion For Leave To Admit Amended Petition With Prayer For Preliminary Prohibitory And Mandatory Injunctions, filed by petitioners, and respondents' motion to dismiss which is consolidated with their answer dated September 30, 1994. Petitioners, in their aforestated motion, allege that the instant petition is a petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunctions so as to enjoin the August 14 election. Inasmuch as the election had already been held last August 14, 1994 without such injunction supposedly issued by this Office, amendments to the instant petition is now proper and in order in the interest of justice, thus, they are now constrained to move for leave to admit their amended petition with prayer for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. Respondents, on the other hand, in their aforestated motion to dismiss, allege that the issue or the remedy sought by the petitioners in this case is already moot and academic because of the election of a new set of officers of FH-NAPICO TODA on August 14, 1994. Our Supreme Court, in the case of Torres vs. Tomacruz, G.R. No. 26251, February 7, 1927, 49 Phil. 913, ruled in this wise: "The granting of leave to file amended pleading is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not be disturbed on appeal, except in case of an evident abuse thereof. But the rule of allowing amendments to pleadings is subject to the general but not inflexible limitation that the cause of action on defense shall not be substantially changed, or the theory of the case shall not be altered." An examination of the records of this case would reveal that herein petitioners' original petition is to enjoin individual respondents from proceeding with the election of petitioner association's officers. A further examination thereof would also show that petitioners' amended petition attached to their motion for leave to admit amended petition with prayer for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions filed on November 9, 1994 after the respondents had already filed their answer with motion to dismiss, is to enjoin some of the original individual respondents from discharging their functions, duties and responsibilities, a complete alteration of their original theory or cause of action, hence, a clear of violation of the aforecited ruling of the Supreme Court. Considering that petitioners initiated their case under one theory and then switched to another theory subsequent to respondents' filing of an answer with motion to dismiss; considering that the petitioners attempted to change the nature of their cause of action entirely, which is in violation of the aforementioned ruling of the Supreme Court, and considering that petitioners did not deny but to the contrary admit that their original cause of action has become moot and academic by the election of a new set of officers of the association, this Hearing Officer has no alternative rather than to deny petitioners' motion for leave to admit amended petition with prayer for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions and, further, dismiss this case for being moot and academic. prLL SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ROGELIO C. SESCON Hearing Officer