RUDOLF LIETZ HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF PARAAQUE C ITY, respondent. G.R. No.

133240, November 15, 2000 X x x. Amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed in furtherance of justice, in orde r that every case may so far as possible be determined on its real facts, and in order to speed the trial of cases or prevent the circuitry of action and unnece ssary expense. The trial court, therefore, should have allowed the amendment pro posed by petitioner for in so doing, it would have allowed the actual merits of the case to be speedily determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multip licity of suits and in order that the real controversies between the parties are presented, their rights determined and the case decided on the merits without u nnecessary delay. This liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, especially in this case where the amendment to the complaint was made before the trial of the case thereby giving petitioner all the time allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial. X x x. b. RODRIGO QUIRAO, MONICA QUIRAO, ROBERTO QUIRAO, EDILBERTO QUIRAO, JESUS GOLE, GERARDO QUIRAO, LAMBERTO VALDEZ & FEDERICO QUIRAO, petitioners, vs. LYDIA QUIRAO & LEOPOLDO QUIRAO, JR., G.R. No. 148120, October 24, 2003. X x x. In the case at bar, petitioners filed their motion for leave of court to admit a mended answer only after respondents have rested their case. Petitioners argue t hat the error was due to the oversight of the three previous counsels. Petitione rs fourth counsel also claims that he learned of the alternative defense late as his clients (petitioners herein) did not inform him of the Deed of Sale. Alleged ly, they relied on the advice of their previous counsels that the said deed of s ale was a mere scrap of paper because it was not signed by Carlito de Juan. Respon dents contend that petitioners motion is too late in the day. Petitioners motion for admission of amended answer may be a little tardy but this by itself is not a cause for its denial. Their amended answer alleges that resp ondents no longer own the subject property having sold the same to de Juan who, in turn, sold the property to petitioners. These allegations, if correct, are vi tal to the disposition of the case at bar. The interest of justice and equity de mand that they be considered to avoid a result that is iniquitous. Truth cannot be barred by technical rules. For this reason, our ruling case law holds that am endments to pleadings are generally favored and should be liberally allowed in f urtherance of justice so that every case may so far as possible be determined on its real facts and in order to prevent the circuity of action. We should always bear in mind that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application especi ally on technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided. Tec hnicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes it s great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from the courts. X x x.