RHEEM OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.

VS FERRER

Facts: A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Atty. Jose S. Armonio, addressing the court in
a language that the court believed is disrespectful. Respondent’s members of the law firm,
namely, Attys. Alfonso Ponce Enrile, Leonardo Siguion Reyna, Manuel G. Montecillo, Enrique
M. Belo abd Oscar R. Ongsiako assumed full responsibility for what appears in the motion for
reconsideration. They submitted that not one of the partners was able to pass upon the draft or
final form of the said motion, and that Atty. Armonio, an associate prepared, signed and prepare
the motion “without clearing it with any of the partners at the firm”.

Issue: WON the actions made by Atty. Jose S. Armonio and associates is a ground for contempt.

Ruling: The Court admonished Atty. Jose S. Antonio, with the warning that repetition of the
incident will be dealt accordingly.

By now, a lawyer's duties to the Court have become common place. Section 20 (b), Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, in categorical terms, spells out one such duty: “To observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.” As explicit is the first canon of legal
ethics which pronounces that “[i]t is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a
respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance.” That same canon, as a corollary, makes it peculiarly
incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts against “unjust criticism and clamor.” The
attorney's oath solemnly binds him to a conduct that should be “with all good fidelity . . . to the
courts.” Worth remembering is that the duty of an attorney to the courts “can only be maintained
by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to
uphold.”
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER VS. ALMEDA, 550 SCRA 199

Facts: Philippine daily inquirer published 2 articles containing the death of Expedito Caldez
brought on by the alleged erroneous diagnosis of Dr. Luz Babaran. The DOH conducted an
investigation regarding the allegations and found out later on that Dr. Babaran’s diagnosis are
not erroneous. After these two articles, Babaran filed a complaint against the PDI on the grounds
that they acted on bad faith for not answering the letter by Dr. Babaran whilst releasing another
article and suppressing the findings of DOH regarding that matter. Petitioners filed an answer
with the following defenses: that there was not cause of action against them; that the complaint
fails and omits to state the factual premises to support a conclusion that there was malice on the
part of the PDI in publishing the questioned news report; that private respondent failed to allege
“actual malice” on the part of the petitioners; that a case for actionable libel with claims for
damages has not been adequately stated in the complaint; and, that the complaint fails to
establish the basis of petitioners’ liability. During pre-trial, petitioners raised the issue and
moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that private respondent did not
delineated the partition of each of the petitioners in their complaint and there was no cause of
action in the pleadings filed by the respondent. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion, so as the
CA. Thus this petition.

Issue: WON respondent’s initiatory pleading is sufficient to have cause of action.

Ruling: The Court finds that the petitioners raised the threshold question whether the
complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action.

As defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is the act or omission by
which a party violates the right of another. In relation to a complaint, it is a formal statement of
the operative facts that give rise to a remedial right. The question of whether the complaint states
a cause of action is determined by its averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant.
Thus, it must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the
plaintiff's cause of action. As such, the failure to make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action
in the complaint warrants its dismissal. When a defendant seeks the dismissal of the complaint
through a motion to dismiss, the sufficiency of the motion should be tested on the strength of the
allegations of facts contained in the complaint and on no other basis. The issue of whether or not
the complaint failed to state a cause of action, warranting its dismissal, must be passed upon on
the basis of the allegations stated therein assuming them to be true and the court cannot inquire
into the truth of the allegations and declare them to be false; otherwise, it would be a procedural
error and a denial of due process to the plaintiff.

Hence, the trial court should have granted petitioners’ motion for a preliminary hearing on the
affirmative defenses raised in the answer based on failure to state a cause of action.