Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
G.R. No. L-18401 April 27, 1963 enlarged photographs. He explained how both the slant (diagonal) and
PERFECTO JABALDE, plaintiff-appellant, vs.PHILIPPINE NATIONAL the vertical lines in both figures are parallel to each other, and the angles
BANK, defendant-appellee. created by the slant and horizontal lines are congruent; the bases of the
two "4's" are on the same plane. Therefore, we agree that no other
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to the Court conclusion is possible than that the two last digits are both "4".
of Appeals, elevated by the latter to the Supreme Court as a case
involving a constitutional question under Section 17 of the Judiciary Act Plaintiff's counsel avers that if there was any tampering, it should be
of 1948. attributed to the bank that issued the passbook. On this point, the trial
court correctly observed that it would be puerile for any of the bank's
Plaintiff-appellant Perfecto Jabalde seeks recovery of P10,000.00 officials to do this since the act would be against the bank's interest.
allegedly deposited by him with the defendant-appellee Philippine
National Bank, P5,000.00 in genuine Philippine currency on 21 July 1941 Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of
and another P5,000.00 on 30 August 1943 in mixed genuine Philippine facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without
currency and Japanese military notes. The complaint recites the printed prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not
wording of plaintiff's passbook, and allegedly reproduces page one covered by this stipulation of facts.
1äw phï1.ñët
The court of first instance held that the appellant's wartime deposits were The argument that the rule of Hilado vs. De la Costa, supra, should not
not reimbursable under Executive Order No. 49, Series of 1945, issued apply because the complaint herein was filed in 1956 when there was no
by President Osmeña in the exercise of the authority conferred by the more emergency is impertinent, since Executive Order No. 49 is clearly
Emergency Powers Act (Comm. Act No. 671). The Executive Order intended for permanent application, and its operation was not limited to
provides that:. the period of emergency.
All deposits made with banking institutions during enemy Assuming, arguendo, that the bank promised later to pay the plaintiff-
occupation, and all deposit liabilities incurred by banking the depositor when it would be indemnified by either the United States or the
same period are declared null and void, except as provided in this Japanese government, said promise could not be considered a novation
section. of the contract of deposit, because there was no contract to novate in the
first place, for lack of one of the essential elements of a contract: object.
The appellant does not contest that under said Executive Order his The object of the supposed contract (in this case the deposited military
wartime deposits are void; but he vigorously assails the validity and notes) was declared null and void, and, therefore, non-existing.
constitutionality of the order as impairing the obligation of contracts and
depriving him of property without due process of law. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. Let the case be
This is no longer an open issue. It was passed upon and decided referred to the City Fiscal, through the Department of Justice, for
in Hilado vs. De la Costa, 83 Phil. 471, wherein it was ruled: investigation and prosecution as the facts may warrant.
4
CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES – Allegations in a Pleading (Rule 8)
subsequently to March 15, 1952, petitioner induced the public to believe that surety bond — despite the fact that it exceeded the sum of P8,000.00
she had authority to issue such bonds. As a consequence, petitioner is now and hence, required, for its validity and binding effect as against
estopped from pleading, particularly against a regular customer thereof, like petitioner herein, the express approval and confirmation of its Manila
Hodges, the absence of said authority. office, which were not secured — in view of petitioner's failure to deny
under oath the genuineness and due execution of said bond, copy of
Let us now take up the third assignment of error and defer, until after the which was attached to the complaint. It is true that, pursuant to section 8
same has been disposed of, the consideration of the second assignment of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court:
of error. Under the third assignment of error, petitioner maintains that,
having been instituted on October 24, 1955 — or nine (9) months after When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
the expiration of petitioner's surety bond on January 23, 1955 — the copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided
present action is barred by the provision in said bond to the effect that it: in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of
the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse
...will not be liable for any claim not discovered and presented to party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he
the Company within three (3) months from the expiration of this claims to be the facts; but this provision does not apply when the
bond and that the obligee hereby waives his right to file any court adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or
action against the surety after the termination of the period of when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original
three months above-mentioned. instrument is refused.
Interpreting an identical provision, 2 court has, however, held "that the We have however, held that:
three-month period" prescribed therein "established only a condition
precedent, — not a limitation of action," and that, when a claim has been ... where a case has been tried in complete disregard of the rule
presented within said period, the action to enforce the claim may be "filed and the plaintiff having pleaded a document by copy, presents
within the statutory time of prescription." This view was clarified in a oral evidence to prove the due execution of the document as well
subsequent case, 3 in the sense that the above-quoted provision was "...
as the agent's authority and no objections are made to the
merely interpreted to mean that presentation of the claim within three months
defendant's evidence in refutation, the rule will be considered
was a condition precedent to the filing of a court action. Since the obligee in
waived. 6
said case presented his claim seasonably although it did not file the action
within the same period, this Court ruled that the stipulation in the bond
concerning the limitation being ambiguous, the ambiguity should be resolved The reason for such view was explained by this Court as follows:
against the surety, which drafted the agreement, and that the action could be
filed within the statutory period of prescription." 4 Before entering upon a discussion of the questions raised by the
assignments of error, we may draw attention to a matter which
In the case at bar, it is not contended that Hodges had not presented his has not been mentioned either by counsel or by the court below,
claim within three (3) months from January 23, 1955. In fact, he had but which, to prevent misunderstanding, should be briefly
repeatedly demanded from petitioner herein compliance with its explained: It is averred in the complaint that it is accompanied by
obligations under the surety bond in question, and, in reply to such a copy of the contract between the parties (Exhibit A) which copy,
demands, petitioner asked extensions of time, on January 29, February by the terms of the complaint, is made a part thereof. The copy is
16, March 15, May 3, June 16, July 1 and 15, and October 15, not set forth in the bill of exceptions and aside from said
1955. 5 After thus securing extensions of time, even beyond three (3) months averment, there is no indication that the copy actually
from January 23, 1955, petitioner cannot plead the lapse of said period to bar accompanied the complaint, but an examination of the record of
the present action. the case in the Court of First Instance shows that a translation of
the contract was attached to the complaint and served upon the
The second assignment of error assails the finding of the Court of defendant. As this translation may be considered a copy and as
Appeals to the effect that the petitioner is liable for the full amount of the defendant failed to deny its authenticity under oath, it will
5
CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES – Allegations in a Pleading (Rule 8)
perhaps be said that under section 103 of the Code of Civil and petitioner herein cannot be held liable in excess of the sum of
Procedure the omission to so deny it constitutes an admission of P8,000.00.
the genuineness and due execution of the document as well as of
the agent's authority to bind the defendant. (Merchant vs. WHEREFORE, with the modification that petitioner's liability to Hodges is
International Banking Corporation, 6 Phil. 314.) limited to said sum of P8,000.00 the period, the petitioner was, on
January 18, 1956, declared it is hereby affirmed in all other respects,
In ordinary circumstances that would be true. But this without costs. It is so ordered.
case appears to have been tried upon the theory that the
rule did not apply; at least, it was wholly overlooked or G.R. No. L-28140 March 19, 1970
disregarded by both parties. The plaintiffs at the
lâwphî1.ñèt
In this appeal, defendant-appellant contends that the court a quo erred in With regard to the plea of lack of knowledge or information set up
considering him as having failed to deny specifically the material in paragraph 3 of the answer, this Court's decision in Warner
allegations of the complaint, and, consequently, in deciding the case on Barnes vs. Reyes, 103 Phil. 662, 665, is authority for the
the basis of the pleadings. Citing Moran, Comments on the Rules of proposition that this form of denial must be availed of with
Court, Vol. I, 1963 Ed., p. 281, he argues that since Section 10, Rule 8 of sincerity and good faith, not for the purpose of confusing the other
the Revised Rules of Court, recognizes three (3) modes of specific party, nor for purposes of delay. Yet, so lacking in sincerity and
denial, namely: (1) by specifying each material allegation of fact in the good faith is this part of the answer that defendants-appellants go
complaint the truth of which the defendant does not admit, and, whenever to the limit of denying knowledge or information as to whether
practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters which he will rely they (defendants) were in the premises (Marsman Bldg.) on
upon to support his denial or (2) by specifying so much of an averment in January 4, 1961, as averred in paragraph 4 of the complaint. Yet
the complaint as is true and material and denying only the remainder or whether such a fact was or was not true could not be unknown to
(3) by stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information these defendants.
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the
complaint, which has the effect of a denial, and he has adopted the third In National Marketing Corporation vs. De Castro, 106 Phil. 803 (1959),
mode of specific denial, his answer tendered an issue, and, consequently this Court held:
the court a quo could not render a valid judgment on the pleadings.
Furthermore, in his answer to the appellee's complaint, he merely
This appeal is without merit. alleged that 'he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the matters contained in paragraphs 3,
We agree with defendant-appellant that one of the modes of specific 4, 5 and 6 so much so that he denies specifically said
denial contemplated in Section 10, Rule 8, is a denial by stating that the allegations.' A denial is not specific simply because it is so
defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief qualified. (Sections 6 and 7, Rule 9; El Hogar Filipino vs. Santos
as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint. The question, Investments, Inc., 74 Phil. 79; Baetamo vs. Amador, 74 Phil. 735;
however, is whether paragraph 2 of defendant-appellant's answer Dacanay vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 139; Lagrimas vs. Lagrimas, 95
constitutes a specific denial under the said rule. We do not think so. Phil. 113). Material averments in a complaint, other than those as
7
CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES – Allegations in a Pleading (Rule 8)
to the amount of damage, are deemed admitted when not motion for reconsideration of the order of September 13, 1966, which
specifically denied. (Section 8, Rule 9,) The court may render deemed the case submitted for decision on the pleadings, or of the
judgment upon the pleadings if material averments in the decision rendered on January 9, 1967. In Santiago vs. Basilan Lumber
complaint are admitted. (Section 10, Rule 35; Baetamo vs. Company, G.R. No. L-15532, October 31, 1963 (9 SCRA 349), this Court
Amador, supra, Lichauco vs. Guash, 76 Phil. 5; Lati vs. Valmores, said:
G.R. No. L-6877, 30 March 1954.)
It appears that when the plaintiff moved to have the case decided
It becomes evident from all the above doctrines that a mere allegation of on the pleadings, the defendant interposed no objection and has
ignorance of the facts alleged in the complaint, is insufficient to raise an practically assented thereto. The defendant, therefore, is deemed
issue; the defendant must aver positively or state how it is that he is to have admitted the allegations of the complaint, so that there
ignorant of the facts so alleged. (Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court was no necessity for the plaintiff to submit evidence of his claim.
in the Philippines, Vol. I, p. 417, citing Wood vs. Staniels, 3 Code Rep.
152 and Vassalt vs. Austin, 32 Cal. 597.) PREMISES CONSIDERED, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with
cost against defendant-appellant.
Thus, in at least two (2) cases where this Court ruled that judgment on
the pleadings was not proper, it will be seen that the reason was that in
each case the defendants did something more than merely alleging lack
of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. In Arrojo vs.
Caldoza, et al., G.R. No. L-17454, July 31, 1963 (8 SCRA 547), the
defendants, in their answer to the complaint for recovery of possession of
a parcel of land, did not merely allege that they had no knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the material
allegations in the complaint, but added the following: "The truth of the
matter is that the defendants have not occupied or taken any property
belonging to the plaintiff. They took possession and ownership only of the
land belonging to them, which properties were possessed and owned
originally by their predecessors-in-interest, who were the parents of the
defendants ...." In Benavides vs. Alabastro, G.R. No. L-19762, December
23, 1964 (12 SCRA 553), the defendant's answer did not only deny the
material allegations of the complaints but also set up certain special and
affirmative defenses the nature of which called for presentation of
evidence.
There are two other reasons why the present appeal must fail. First. The
present action is founded upon a written instrument attached to the
complaint, but defendant-appellant failed to deny under oath the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument; hence, the same are
deemed admitted. (Section 8, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of Court;
Songo vs. Sellner, 37 Phil. 254; Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank
vs. ELRO Development Corporation, et al., G.R. No. L-30830, August 22,
1969 [29, SCRA 38]; J. P. Juan & Sons, Inc. vs. Lianga Industries,
Inc., supra.) Second. Defendant-appellant did not oppose the motion for
judgment on the pleadings filed by plaintiff appellee; neither has he filed a
8
CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES – Allegations in a Pleading (Rule 8)
G.R. No. 159648 July 27, 2007 24, 1999 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 58, in
4
FLUOR DANIEL, INC.-PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs.E.B. VILLAROSA & Civil Case No. 98-1342.
PARTNERS CO., LTD., Respondent.
The pertinent facts, borne by the records, are as follows.
1. Remedial Law; Actions; Causes of Action; Essential Elements of a
Cause of Action; The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint Petitioner Fluor Daniel, Inc.-Philippines is a domestic corporation
as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts providing construction and program management services. Sometime in
alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the 1996, petitioner entered into an agreement with Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.
prayer of the complaint.- (Fil-Estate) for the construction of the Fairways & Bluewater, Newcoast
Island Resort in Boracay Island. Respondent E.B. Villarosa& Partners
The essential elements of a cause of action are as follows: 1) A right in Co., Ltd. was one of the contractors engaged by petitioner to provide
favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises services for the said project.
or is created; 2) An obligation on the part of the defendant not to violate
such right; and 3) An act or omission on the part of the defendant in On May 6, 1997, petitioner and respondent executed a separate contract
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the for civil structure and architecture, for plumbing and fire protection, and
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may for millworks. However, Fil-Estate failed to satisfy petitioner’s monthly
maintain an action for recovery of damages or other relief. It is, thus, only progress billing. Hence, petitioner did not pay respondent.
upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action arises,
giving the plaintiff a right to file an action in court for recovery of damages Petitioner apprised Fil-Estate that the project would have to be
or other relief. The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as suspended. Petitioner likewise issued a notice of suspension of work to
constituting a cause of action is whether or not admit- ting the facts all its contractors, including respondent. In response, respondent
alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the informed petitioner that it deemed the contracts between them good as
prayer of the complaint. That in determining sufficiency of cause of terminated. Thus, respondent demanded payment for suspension cost
action, the court takes into account only the material allegations of the and for work so far performed.
complaint and no other, is not a hard and fast rule. In some cases, the
court considers the documents attached to the complaint to truly
Believing that petitioner was in bad faith, respondent also filed with the
determine sufficiency of cause of action.
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 58, a complaint5 for a sum of
money and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1342.
2. Remedial Law; Actions; Causes of Action; A complaint should not be
dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action if it appears clearly from the
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss6 on the ground that the complaint
complaint and its attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.-
failed to state a cause of action. The trial court denied the motion in its
first assailed Order, to wit:
We have ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency
of cause of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, defendant’s motion to dismiss is
attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The converse is also
hereby DENIED.
true. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action if it is
obvious from the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not entitled
to any relief. Pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
defendant-movant shall file its answer within the balance of the period
prescribed by Rule 11, same Rules, to which defendant was entitled at
For review on certiorari are the Decision1 dated October 24, 2002 and the
the time of serving its motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event,
Resolution2 dated August 25, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
computed from receipt of this order.
SP No. 52897, which had affirmed the November 19, 19983 and March
9
CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES – Allegations in a Pleading (Rule 8)
SO ORDERED. 7 entitled "E.B. Villarosa& Partners Co., Inc. vs. Fluor Daniel, Inc. –
Philippines" denying petitioner’s Motion To Dismiss as well as its order of
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the trial 24 March 1999 denying reconsideration thereof, are both affirmed.
court’s second impugned Order, thus:
Accordingly, the temporary restraining order issued by the Ninth Division
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, defendant’s Motion for of this Court as contained in Resolution dated 25 May 2000 … is hereby
Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. lifted.
The filing of the last pleading and the consequent joinder of issues has Costs against petitioner.
ripened this case for pre-trial which is hereby set…
SO ORDERED.10
Let notices of pre-trial be sent to the parties and their counsel.
Hence, the instant petition, raising the following issues:
SO ORDERED. 8
I.
Respondent subsequently filed a motion to amend its complaint followed
by its amended complaint. Petitioner, on the other hand, filed a motion to Whether or not the Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against
suspend proceedings. The trial court granted respondent’s, but denied FDIP [PETITIONER] in light of the jurisprudential tests and guidelines laid
petitioner’s motion, to wit: down by this Honorable Court.
1) Plaintiff’s Urgent Motion to Amend Complaint With Leave of Whether or not the annexes attached to the Complaint should be
Court is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, plaintiff’s Amended considered in determining whether or not VILLAROSA’s
Complaint filed on May 07, 1999 is hereby admitted in lieu of the [RESPONDENT’S] Complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against
original complaint which is hereby deemed withdrawn for all FDIP in light of jurisprudential tests and guidelines laid down by this
intents and purposes. Consequently, defendant is given fifteen Honorable Court.
(15) days after receipt of this Order within which to file its
Amended Answer to plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. III.
2) Defendant’s Motion to Suspend Proceedings is hereby Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in refusing to consider the annexes
DENIED. to the Complaint, erred in failing to appreciate the clear admission of
VILLAROSA [RESPONDENT] that payment of its billings was subject to
SO ORDERED.9 the condition of timely receipt of similar payments from FIL-ESTATE.
Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari IV.
assailing the November 19, 1998 and March 24, 1999 Orders of the
court a quo and praying for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in refusing to consider the annexes
preliminary injunction. The appellate court decreed: to the Complaint, failed to appreciate the significance of VILLAROSA’s
[RESPONDENT’S] failure to satisfy the required criteria to justify payment
WHEREFORE, the Order dated 19 November 1998 issued by the under its monthly progress billings.11
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 58 in Civil Case No. 98-1342
10
CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES – Allegations in a Pleading (Rule 8)
Petitioner contends that the complaint utterly and miserably failed to state material allegations of the complaint and no other, is not a hard and fast
the operative facts which would give rise to a cause of action against it. rule. In some cases, the court considers the documents attached to the
Petitioner insists that the annexes attached to respondent’s complaint complaint to truly determine sufficiency of cause of action.15
and other pleadings should be considered in determining respondent’s
cause of action, or lack of it, against petitioner. Petitioner maintains that We have ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency
the Court of Appeals committed manifest error when it refused to of cause of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its
consider the annexes to the complaint, showing respondent’s admission attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.16 The converse is also
that payment of its billings was subject to the condition of timely receipt of true. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action if it is
similar payments from petitioner. obvious from the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not entitled
to any relief.
Respondent, however, counters that its complaint sufficiently stated a
cause of action against petitioner and that the annexes attached to the In this case, we note that annexed to the subject complaint are the three
complaint bear no relevance, not having been admitted by stipulation. contracts governing the rights and obligations between petitioner and
Respondent asserts that the three elements of a cause of action are all respondent, namely the contract for civil structure and architecture, the
present in this case, namely: (i) legal right of respondent to demand contract for plumbing and fire protection, and the contract for millworks.
payment from petitioner; (ii) obligation of petitioner to pay respondent; Records show that recurring in each of the said contracts is the provision
and (iii) failure of petitioner to pay respondent. Respondent stresses that that payment by petitioner shall be subject to its timely receipt of similar
petitioner cannot evade its liability to pay by claiming that payments to payments from Fil-Estate. The said provision, found in each of the
respondent are subject to timely receipt of similar payments from Fil- aforesaid contracts, is quoted below:
Estate.
2.0 PRICING BASIS
The petition is impressed with merit.
The Contract Price set forth herein is firm for the duration of the Work and
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: includes all Contractor’s costs, expenses, overhead and profit for
complete performance of the Work.
SEC. 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the act or
omission by which a party violates a right of another. x xxx
The essential elements of a cause of action are as follows: 1) A right in …Payment of the billings shall be subject to the timely receipt of
favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises similar payments from the client by Fluor Daniel. Any prolonged delay
or is created; 2) An obligation on the part of the defendant not to violate in payment by Fluor Daniel is subject to a suspension of activities by EBV
such right; and 3) An act or omission on the part of the defendant in within five (5) work days after proper written notice is provided by
violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the contractor to Fluor Daniel.17 (Emphasis supplied.)
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages or other relief.12 On their face, the said attached contracts, which define and delimit the
rights and obligations of the parties, clearly require a specific condition
It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of before petitioner may be held liable for payment. The complaint,
action arises, giving the plaintiff a right to file an action in court for however, failed to state that the said condition had been fulfilled. Without
recovery of damages or other relief.13 The test of sufficiency of facts the said condition having taken place, petitioner cannot be said to have
alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or breached its obligation to pay.
not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in
accordance with the prayer of the complaint.14 That in determining
sufficiency of cause of action, the court takes into account only the
11
CIVIL PROCEDURE CASES – Allegations in a Pleading (Rule 8)
We thus hold that respondent’s complaint, taken with the contracts
annexed to it, failed to pass the test of sufficiency of cause of action.
Thus, the said complaint should have been dismissed on the ground of
failure to state a cause of action.
SO ORDERED.
12