Capitulo 4. Identificación de los postulados teóricos que orientan las
4.1 La memoria base del desarrollo de la sociedad
It is an act or omission by which a party violates the right of another (Rule 2, Sec.
2 ROC).
Q:A contracted the services of B to overhaul two aircrafts engines. Due to its technical capability, B contracted the services of C to do the work. A accepted the overhauled engines and released the amount to B but C was not paid for the remaining balances despite the demands.
C filed a complaint before the RTC against B and A to pay the balance plus interest.
CA dismissed the case against A because the complaint does not state a cause of action against A but granted its complaint against B. Does C failed to sufficiently state a cause of action?
A: Yes, according to the SC, cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
In pursuing that cause, a plaintiff must first plead in the complaint a “concise direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.” [Magellan Aerospace Corporation vs. Philippine Air Force, Feb. 24, 2016]
Elements: (L-A- D)
1. A legal right of the plaintiff
2. A correlative duty of the defendant to respect plaintiff’s right
3. An act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff’s right with consequential injury or damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action for recovery or other relief (Relucio v Lopez, GR No. 138479, June 16 2002).
Right of Action
The right to commence and prosecute an action to obtain the relief sought.
Elements: (C-P-P)
1. Existence of the cause of action 2. Performance of all conditions
precedent
3. The action must be instituted by the proper party
Cause of Action Right of Action
30
Act or mission by which a party violates the right of another
Right to commence and prosecute an action to obtain the relief sought The delict or wrong
committed by the defendant
The right of the plaintiff to institute the action as a consequence of that delict or wrong
The reason for the action.
The remedy or means afforded or the consequent relief.
The formal statement of the operative facts that gives rise to remedial right
The remedial right given to a person because of the occurrence of the alleged facts
A matter of procedure and depends on the pleadings filed by the parties
A matter of right and depends on substantive law
NOT affected by
affirmative defenses Affected by Affirmative defenses
Q: Plaintiff lent P500,000 to defendant.
The loan is secured by a real estate morgage executed by X in favor of the Plaintiff. The defendant failed to pay the loan on the due date despite demand from Plaintiff. (Riguera, Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law, Vol.I, 2015,page 69) What is the cause of action of the Plaintiff?
A: The cause of action is the defendant's non-payment of the loan on due date.
Q: What is the right of action of the Plaintiff?
A: The substantive right on the part of the Plaintiff to sue for redress.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO FILING A COMPLAINT
1. Barangay Conciliation (Secs. 399-422, Local Government Code);
2. Intra-Family Dispute
3. Investigation by a fiscal is a prerequisite to annulment of marriage when defendant defaults (Art. 151, Family Code);
4. No suit shall be filed between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts at compromise have been made but the same have failed (Art. 2035, Civil Code)
5. Citizen’s Suit (Sec. 41, Clean Air Act);
6. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (DEAR);
7.Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction;
8.Referral to Arbitration (Sec. 41, ADR Act of 2004);
9.Payment of Docket Fees (Sec. 1,2, &
21 (a), Rule 141; Sec. 1, Rule 111).
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT If conditions precedent are not complied with, the remedy is to move for its dismissal pursuant to Rule 16, Sec. 1 (j).
CAUSE OF ACTION IN PROCEEDINGS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF The concept and meaning of the term cause of action in proceedings for declaratory relief vis-à- vis an ordinary civil action, is BROADENED. It is not, as in ordinary civil action, the wrong or delict by which the plaintiff’s rights are violated, but it is extended to a mere denial, refusal or challenge raising at least
31
an uncertainty or insecurity which is injurious to plaintiff’s rights (Multi-Realty Dev’t Corp. v. Makati Tuscany Condominium Corp., G.R. No. 146726, June 16, 2006 citing Moran, Vol. 3, 1970 Ed.).
Rationale: Courts should be allowed to act, not only when the harm is actually done and rights jeopardized by physical wrongs or physical attack upon existing legal relation, but also when challenge, refusal, dispute, or denial thereof is made amounting to a live controversy (Riguera, Manuel R. Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law, Volume I, Civil Procedure, 2009).
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
The remedy of the defendant is to move for its dismissal under Rule 16, Sec.1 (g) on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action.
Test of Sufficiency of a Cause of Action Whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer in complaint (Misamis Occidental II Cooperative Inc. v David, G.R.
No. 129928, August 25, 2005).
ONE SUIT FOR A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION (SEC. 3)
A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
Splitting a Single Cause of Action and Its Effects.(Rule 2, Sec. 4.)
If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
The act of dividing a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts and bringing the suit for one of such parts only, intending to reserve the rest for another separate action is the prohibited act of splitting a single cause of action (Regalado).
Rationale:
1. Avoid multiplicity of suits
2. Protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation and harassment
3. Avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits
Limitations of the Rule:
1. Applies only to where the action les between the same parties.
2. Where the nature of relief is cognizable by different tribunals, the rule is not violated.
Example: An action to establish plaintiff’s filiation as illegitimate children cognizable by the JDRC and of a separate action for partition of the estate of their deceased father cognizable by the regular courts.
General Rules:
1. A contract to do several things at several times is divisible, and 2. A judgment for a single breach of a
continuing contract is not a bar to a suit for subsequent breaches.
Exception:
Where there is a complete and total breach of a continuous contract for a
32
term of years, the recovery of a judgment for damages by reason of the breach is a bar to another action on the same contract for and on account of the continuous breach (Blossom & Co. v Manila Gas Corp., GR No. L-32958, Nov 8 1930).
Effects:
The remedy of the defendant is to move for its dismissal under Rule 16 when a single cause of action is split on the ground that:
1. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or litis pendentia 2. If the first action has already been
finally terminated on the ground of res judicata
Q: What is the Principle of Anticipatory Breach?
A: An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract, though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the renunciation goes to the whole contract, be treated as a complete breach which will entitle the injured party to bring his action at once (Blossom & Co. v Manila Gas Corp., GR No. L-32958, Nov 8 1930; Danfoss Inc. v Continental Cement Corp, GR No. 143788, Sept. 9 2005).
Q: Single Injury, Single Cause of Action Theory?
A: The singleness of a cause of action lies in the singleness of the delict or wrong violating the rights of one person.
Nevertheless, if only one injury resulted from several wrongful acts, only one cause of action arises (Joseph v Bautista, GR No. 41423, Feb 23 1989).
Joinder of Causes of Action
( Rule 2, Sec. 5)
The assertion in the alternative or otherwise, of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone is valid.
Q: What are the rules governing joinder of causes of action?
A: (JISM)
1. The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties under Section 6, Rule 3.
2. The joinder shall NOT include special civil actions governed by special rules
3. Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdiction, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC, provided that:
a. One of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC; AND
b. The venue lies therein
4. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the rest of jurisdiction (Totality Rule, Sec. 33 (1), BP 129).
Elements for Joinder of Parties:
1. There must be a right to relief in respect to or arising from the same transaction or series of transactions
33
2. There is a question of fact or law common to all the plaintiffs or defendants
3. Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue.
(Rule 3, Sec. 6)
Q: Is joinder of causes of action mandatory or permissive?
A: The rule on joinder of causes of action is purely permissive and the plaintiff can always file separate actions for each cause of action (Baldovir v Sarte, 36 Phil 550).
The rule on permissive joinder of causes of action is subject to the rules regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of parties.
Q: When is joinder of causes of action compulsory?
A: When the joinder refers to joinder of indispensable parties, joinder is compulsory (Rule 7, Sec. 3)
The provision allowing joinder of causes of action which pertains to different jurisdiction under Rule 2, Sec.5 (c) applies only if joinder is in the RTC.
Misjoinder of Causes of Action (Rule 2, Sec. 6)
Two or more causes of action are joined in one complaint when they should not have been joined.
Misjoinder of causes of action is NOT a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court be severed and proceeded with separately.