Phil Export v. Phil Infrastructures
Phil Export v. Phil Infrastructures
Phil Export v. Phil Infrastructures
Austria-Martinez
Topic:
Phil Export demanded the settlement of P20+ million from PII, the
order.
The amendment was not to make the complaint conform to the
evidence presented but rather to introduce a cause of action then nonexisting when the complaint was filed, which was prohibited.
MR was denied. Petition for review on certiorari to the SC.
ISSUE
W/N appeal is the proper remedy for an order dismissing a case without
prejudice. (Under the 1997 rules, NO)
W/N the amendment sought by petitioner can be allowed. YES
SC REVERSED CA, remanded case to trial court.
RATIO
1 No appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without
prejudice under Sec. 1(h) of Rule 41. Thus a rule 65 petition for certiorari
is the proper remedy under the 1997 Rules, although admittedly the CA
promulgated the decision in 1994. Thus it was correct, but the SC still
resolved the case in the interest of substantial justice and because
procedural rules should be applied retroactively.
1