China Banking Corporation vs. Padilla (G.R. No. 143490, February 2, 2007) Related Topic: Third, (fourth, etc.

) party complaint. Fact: Dolores Padilla filed a complaint for sum of money with damages against the bank in the RTC of Makati City alleging erroneous deductions from her Current Account. However, China Bank argued even if the foregoing allegations were true, the same were imputable to its branch manager Emelina T. Quitan, who exceeded her authority in the performance of her duties as branch manager, prompting the bank to terminate the latters services. Believing that there was sufficient cause to hold its branch manager liable in respect to Padilla's complaint, China Bank filed with the trial court a motion for leave of court to file a third-party complaint against Quitan. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that China Bank, as a corporation, could act only through its employees and was responsible for the acts committed by them in the discharge of their function, adding that Quitan's inclusion in the case was not proper and whatever claims the bank may have had against her should be ventilated in another forum. China Bank moved for a reconsideration but to no avail. China Bank went to CA on a petition for certiorari but denied due course because of non compliance with Section 3, Rule 46. Via this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court China raising the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying its motion for leave to file third party complaint. Issue: Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying China Banks motion for leave to file third party complaint? Held: No. A third-party complaint is actually a complaint independent of, and separate and distinct from, the plaintiffs complaint (Section 11, Rule 6, of the 1997). Were it not for the above rule, such third-party complaint would have to be filed independently and separately from the original complaint. The purpose is to avoid circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation all the matters arising from one particular set of facts. Be that as it may, trial courts are not especially enjoined by law to admit a third-party complaint. They are vested with discretion to allow or disallow a party to an action to implead an additional party. Thus, a defendant has no vested right to file a third-party complaint.