Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

TodayisSunday,February14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.158819April16,2009
ANTEROLUISTRO,Petitioner,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandFIRSTGASPOWERCORPORATION,Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreview1assailingthe9December2002Decision2and18June2003Resolution3
inCAG.R.SPNo.68703.
TheAntecedentFacts
First Gas Power Corporation (respondent) operates a gasfired power generating facility by virtue of a Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Manila Electric Company (Meralco). Respondent sells the electric power
generatedbyitsfacilitytoMeralco.
On2September1997,respondententeredintoaSubstationInterconnectionAgreement(SIA)withMeralcoand
the National Power Corporation (NPC). The SIA required respondent to design, finance, construct, commission,
andenergizea230kilovoltelectricpowertransmissionline,approximately25km.inlengthfromitspowerplant
site in Sta. Rita, Batangas City to Calaca, Batangas. Respondents obligation under the SIA entailed the
acquisition of easements of rightofway over affected lands located along the designated route of the
transmissionline.
On 25 March 1997, respondent entered into a Contract of Easement of RightofWay (Contract) with Antero
Luistro(petitioner),ownerofaparceloflandlocatedinBarangayMaigsingDahilig,Lemery,Batangas.Underthe
Contract, petitioner granted respondent perpetual easement over a 100sq. m. portion of his property for the
erectionofthetransmissionlinetoweranda25yeareasementover2,453.60sq.m.portionofthepropertyfor
therighttopassoverheadlinecables.TheContractcoveredatotalareaof2,553.60sq.m.foraconsiderationof
P88,608 to cover the easement fee, tower pole, guy occupancy fees and improvements. Respondent then
commencedtheconstructionofthetransmissionlinetowerandthestringingofoverheadtransmissionlinecables
abovepetitionerspropertycoveredbytheContract.
On 23 December 1998, petitioners counsel wrote a letter to respondents president asking for a temporary
stoppageofallkindsofworkwithinthevicinityofpetitionersresidentialhousependingsettlementofpetitioners
grievance that the house and other improvements lay underneath the transmission wire/line being constructed
andwouldendangerthelifeandhealthofthepersonsinthevicinity.Petitioneralsoreferredtheconcernstothe
NPCinaletterdated19April1999.However,theNPCsetasidepetitionersconcernsandconsideredthematter
closed.
On7September2000,petitionerfiledacomplaint4for"Rescission/AmendmentAndOrModificationofContract
OfEasementWithDamages,"docketedasCivilCaseNo.1422000,againstrespondentandFirstBalfourBeatty
Realty,Inc.(defendants).Petitionerallegedthatrespondent,bymeansoffraudandmachinationsofwords,was
able to convince him to enter into the Contract. Petitioner alleged that he entered into the Contract under
misrepresentation, promises, false and fraudulent assurances, and tricks of respondent. Petitioner alleged that
whilehishousewassupposedtobe20to25metersawayfromthetransmissionwire/line,itturnedoutafterthe
installationofPosts97and98thathishousewasonly7.23metersdirectlyunderneaththetransmissionwire/line.
Petitioner alleged that the powerful 230 kilovolts passing the transmission wire/line continuously endanger the
lives,limbs,andpropertiesofpetitionerandhisfamily.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss5 on the ground that petitioner failed to state a cause of action in his
complaint.
TheRulingoftheTrialCourt
InitsOrder6dated24January2001,theRegionalTrialCourtofLemery,Batangas,Branch5(trialcourt)denied

theMotiontoDismissanddirecteddefendantstofiletheirrespectiveanswerswithintendaysfromreceiptofthe
order.RespondentfiledaMotionforReconsideration.Inits13November2001Order,7thetrialcourtdeniedthe
motion.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the 24 January 2001 and 13
November2001Ordersofthetrialcourt.
TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals
In its 9 December 2001 Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the trial courts 24 January 2001 and 13
November2001Ordersandorderedthedismissalofthecomplaintforfailuretostateacauseofactioninsofaras
respondentwasconcerned.TheCourtofAppealsruledthatthetrialcourtfailedtocomplywithSection3,Rule16
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that in every case, the resolution shall state clearly and
distinctly the reasons therefor. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court failed to consider that when the
groundfordismissalwasfailuretostateacauseofaction,itssufficiencycouldonlybedeterminedbyconsidering
thefactsallegedinthecomplaint.TheCourtofAppealsruledthattheundertakingasregardsthedistanceofthe
transmissionwire/linefrompetitionershousewhichrespondentallegedlybreachedwasnotintheContract.The
CourtofAppealsruledthattheallegedrightofpetitionerasstatedinthecomplaintdidnotexistandwaswithout
anybasis.
TheCourtofAppealsfurtherruledthatitcouldnotsustaintheallegationoffraudbecausepetitionerfailedtostate
with particularity the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud. The dispositive portion of the Decision of the
CourtofAppealsreads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed Orders dated
January24,2001andNovember13,2001oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch5,Lemery,BatangasinCivilCase
No.1422000areherebySETASIDEinsofaraspetitionerisconcernedasthelowercourtisherebyORDEREDto
dismissthecomplaintforfailuretostateacauseofactioninsofaraspetitionerisconcerned.
SOORDERED.8
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 18 June 2003 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the
motionforlackofmerit.
Hence,thepetitionbeforethisCourt.
TheIssues
PetitionerraisesthefollowingissuesinhisMemorandum:
1.Whetherthetrialcourts24January2001and13November2001OrdersfailedtocomplywithSection3,
Rule16ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure
2.Whetherthecomplaintstatesasufficientcauseofactionand
3. Whether the complaint alleges fraud with particularity as required under Section 5, Rule 8 of the 1997
RulesofCivilProcedure.
TheRulingofthisCourt
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
ViolationofSection3,Rule16
ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure
Section3,Rule16ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureprovides:
Sec.3.Resolutionofmotion.Afterthehearing,thecourtmaydismisstheactionorclaim,denythemotion,or
ordertheamendmentofthepleading.
Thecourtshallnotdefertheresolutionofthemotionforthereasonthatthegroundrelieduponisnotindubitable.
Ineverycase,theresolutionshallstateclearlyanddistinctlythereasonstherefor.

la w p h il.n e t

The Rules prescribe that the resolution of the motion to dismiss shall clearly and distinctly declare the reasons
therefor. The directive proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for lack of merit
which can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse
therefromandlikewiseonthehighercourtcalledupontoresolvethesame,usuallyoncertiorari.9Inthiscase,the
trialcourtmerelystated:
Examining the allegations in the complaint the Court finds that a cause of action sufficiently exist[s] against
defendants.10
The trial court did not explain why a sufficient cause of action existed in this case. The trial court merely cited

Article 19 of the Civil Code which provides that "[e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." The
disposition of the trial court clearly fell short of the requirement set forth under Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997
RulesofCivilProcedure.
SufficiencyofCauseofAction
Inamotiontodismissbasedonlackofcauseofaction,thequestionposedtothecourtfordeterminationisthe
sufficiencyoftheallegationoffactsmadeinthecomplainttoconstituteacauseofaction.11Tosustainamotion
todismissforlackofcauseofaction,itmustbeshownthattheclaimforreliefdoesnotexist,ratherthanthata
claimhasbeendefectivelystated,orisambiguous,indefiniteoruncertain.12
In this case, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the complaint lacked sufficient cause of action. The
complaintwasbasedontheallegedbreachoftheContractandviolationoftheundertakingthatpetitionershouse
wassupposedtobe20to25metersawayfromthetransmissionwire/line.Petitionerallegedinthecomplaintthat
contrary to what had been "assured and promised," his house turned out to be only 7.23 meters directly
underneaththetransmissionwire/line.
AspointedoutbytheCourtofAppeals,therewasnosuchundertakingintheContract.TheContractonlygranted
respondentaperpetualeasementover100sq.m.portionofpetitionersproperty,aswellas25yearseasement
of rightofway over the property or portions thereof, as indicated in the sketch plan, for the installation and
maintenance of wooden poles, steel towers, tower footings, and electric and guy wires. Therefore, the alleged
rightofpetitioner,whichrespondentsupposedtohaveviolated,didnotexistintheContract.
AllegationofFraud
Section5,Rule8ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurestates:
Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances
constitutingfraudormistakemustbestatedwithparticularity.Malice,intent,knowledgeorotherconditionofthe
mindofapersonmaybeaverredgenerally.
Again, the complaint falls short of the requirement that fraud must be stated with particularity. The complaint
merelystates:
4.Thatsometimeintheyearof1997,theconsolidatorfacilitatoroftheDefendantsFGPCandBalfourby
means of fraud and machinations of words were able to convince[] the plaintiff to enter into CONTRACT
OFEASEMENTOFRIGHTOFWAYwhereinthelattergrantedinfavorofthedefendantFGPCtherightto
erect [its] Tower No. 98 on the land of the plaintiff situated at Barangay Maigsing Dahilig, Lemery 4209
Batangas including the right to Install Transmission Lines over a portion of the same property for a
considerationthereinstated,axeroxcopyofsaidcontractisheretoattachedas[]ANNEXES"A"upto"A4"
ofthecomplaint
5. That the said contract, (Annexes "A" up to "A4") was entered into by the plaintiff under the
"MISREPRESENTATION, PROMISES, FALSE AND FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES AND TRICKS" of the
defendants[.]13
Notonlydidpetitionerfailtoallegewithparticularitythefraudallegedlycommittedbyrespondent.Areviewofthe
Contractshowsthatitscontentswereexplainedtopetitioner.TheContractstates:
Bagoko/naminnilagdaanangkasulatangitoayipinaliwanagmunasaakin/aminsawikangTagalog/osawikang
aking/aming naiintindihan. Ang nilalaman nitoy lubusan ko/naming nauunawaan kayat lumagda kami rito ng
kusangloob,walangsinumangpumilitotumakotsaakin/amin.14
ThereisclearlynobasisfortheallegationthatpetitioneronlysignedtheContractbecauseoffraudperpetrated
byrespondent.
WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetition.WeAFFIRMthe9December2002Decisionand18June2003Resolution
inCAG.R.SPNo.68703.
SOORDERED.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson
RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen