DAVID LU, petitioner, vs. PATERNO LU YM, SR., PATERNO LU YM, JR.

,
VICTOR LU YM, ET AL. & LUYM DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.
[G.R. No. 153690. August 26, 2008.]
(Consolidated cases: Lu v. Lu Ym, G.R. Nos. 153690, 157381 & 170889, [August 26, 2008], 585
PHIL 251-278)

Facts: David Lu et al., filed a Declaration of Nullity of Share Issue, Receivership and Dissolution against
Lu Ym father and sons claiming that the latter subscribed and paid most of the said company shares for less
than their real values.
Lu Ym father and sons filed a petition to dismiss the abovementioned complaint by David Lu for the party’s
(except David Lu) failure to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping, which the CA granted, hence,
dismissing the complaint filed by the latter.
As a consequence of the dismissal of the complaint, the appellate court likewise annulled the resolutions
placing the corporation under receivership and appointing the receivers.
A motion for reconsideration filed by David Lu, et al., was nevertheless denied by the CA.
Subsequent to the aforesaid decision, however, the RTC ordered David et al. to amend the complaint to
conform to the interim rules of procedure for intra-corporate controversy. In compliance with the order,
David, et al. amended the complaint and filed the same with leave of court.
The RTC, thereafter, admitted the amended complaint, proceeded to hear the case, and decided the same
on the merits.
Lu Ym father and sons questioned the admission of the aforesaid amended complaint before the court
through an Urgent Motion.
Hence, the petition for review on certiorari before this Court was filed by David Lu.
Issue: Whether David et al.’s, compliance to amend the original complaint as prescribed by the RTC be
held admissible to the court and shall supersede the pleading that it amended to adhere to the Rules of Court.
Held: Yes, the amended complaint admitted by the RTC is valid and shall stand to supersede the previous
pleading.
Under the Rules of Court, the proper mode to challenge such an order, which undoubtedly is interlocutory,
is through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Thus, employing other means shall bar the
Court from ruling on the propriety of such admission for it (court) cannot take cognizance of proceedings
before the RTC unless they are brought before the court through the proper mode of review. Additionally,
Section 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that an amended pleading supersedes the
pleading that it amends.
In the case at bar, although Lu Ym father and sons questioned the admission of the aforesaid
amended complaint before the Court, the same was done only through an Urgent Motion. Under the
Rules of Court, the proper mode to challenge such an order, which undoubtedly is interlocutory, is
through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. This procedural defect results to not take
cognizance of proceedings before the RTC. Hence, the Urgent Motion cannot be a substitute for the
remedy of a special civil action for certiorari. Likewise, the original complaint was deemed withdrawn
from the records upon the admission of the amended complaint as provided under Sec. 8, Rule 10 of
the Rules of the Court, which was even made more pronounced when RTC already rendered a decision
on the merits of the said amended complaint, not to mention the Lu Ym father and sons' concurrence
in the mootness of the issue in the instant petition. The court further explicated that it abstains from
expressing its opinions in a case where no legal reliefs is needed or called for.