Where there's NO necessity to amend pleadings

Applying Section 5, Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, since the issue of support was tried with the implied consent of the parties, it should be treated in all respects as if it had been raised in the pleadings. And since there was implied consent, even if no motion had been filed and no amendment had been ordered, the Court holds that the trial court validly rendered a judgment on the issue. Significantly, in the case of Bank of America v. American Realty Corporation, the Court stated:
There have been instances where the Court has held that even without the necessary amendment, the amount proved at the trial may be validly awarded, as in Tuazon v. Bolanos (95 Phil. 106), where the Supreme Court said that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where defendant had himself raised the point on which recovery was based. The appellate court could treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidence although the pleadings were actually not amended. Amendment is also unnecessary when only clerical error or non substantial matters are involved, as the Supreme Court held in Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Laguna (48 Phil. 5). In Co Tiamco v. Diaz (75 Phil. 672), the Supreme Court stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. And in the recent case of National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals (113 SCRA 556), the Supreme Court held that where there is a variance in the defendants pleadings and the evidence adduced by it at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as amended to conform with the evidence. (G.R. No. 124518; December 27, 2007)