ivil Procedure

Actions; cause of action; elements; failure to state a cause of action is ground for
dismissal. A complaint states a cause of action if it avers the existence of
the three essential elements of a cause of action, namely:
(a) The legal right of the plaintiff;

(b) The correlative obligation of the defendant and

(c) The act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal

right.

If the allegations in the complaint do not aver the concurrence of these

elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the
ground of failure to state a cause of. A perusal of the Amended Complaint
in the present case would show that there is, indeed, no allegation of any
act or omission on the part of respondents which supposedly violated the
legal rights of petitioners. Thus, the CA is correct in dismissing the
complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. Padilla
Mercado, Zulueta Mercado, et al. v. Spouses Aguedo Espina and Lourdes
Espina; G.R. No. 173987. February 25, 2013
Actions; moot and academic principle. Verily, in Gancho-on v. Secreatry of
Labor and Employment, the Court emphatically stated that:
It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to
pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual
interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the
issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that
a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual
substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be
negated by the dismissal of the petition.

Applying the above pronouncement, there was no justiciable controversy

anymore in the instant petition in view of the expiration of the Compromise
Agreement sought to be enforced. There was no longer any purpose in
determining whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC
Orders dated October 31, 2001 and April 10, 2002 since any declaration
thereon would be of no practical use or value. By the very admission of
PLDT, it can no longer be compelled to undo its act of blocking the
telecommunication calls and data from the Philippines to Hong Kong
passing through the REACH-ETPI circuits since, effectively, there were no
more circuits to speak of.

Clearly, any decision of this Court on the present petition, whether it be an

affirmance or a reversal of the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals,
would be equivalent in effect to an affirmance or an invalidation of the
challenged Orders of the RTC. But as can be gleaned from the above
discussion, and as succinctly put by PLDT in its Memorandum, there is
nothing more for the RTC to enforce and/or act upon. As such, any
discussion on the matter would be a mere surplusage. Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Eastern Telecom Philippines; G.R. No.
163037. February 6, 2013
Actions; moot and academic principle; nature and exceptions. A moot and
academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by
virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no
practical use or value. Although the controversy could have ceased due to
the intervening appointment of and assumption by Cadiz as the Solicitor
General during the pendency of this suit, and such cessation of the
controversy seemingly rendered moot and academic the resolution of the
issue of the constitutionality of the concurrent holding of the two positions
by Agra, the Court should still go forwards and resolve the issue and not
abstain from exercising its power of judicial review because this case
comes under several of the well-recognized exceptions obtained, namely:
(1) there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a
situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest;
(3) the constitutional issue raised required the formulation of controlling
principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; (4) the case was
capable of repetition, yet evading review.
It is the same here. The constitutionality of the concurrent holding by Agra
of the two positions in the Cabinet, albeit in acting capacities, was as
issue that comes under all the recognized exceptions. The issue involves a
probable violation of the Constitution, and relates to a situation of
exceptional character and of paramount public interest by reason of its
transcendental importance to the people. The resolution of the issue will
also be of the greatest value to the Bench and the Bar in view of the broad
powers wielded through said positions. The situation further calls for the
review because the situation is capable of repetition, yet evading review.
In other words, many important and practical benefits are still to be gained
were the Court to proceed the ultimate resolution of the constitutional
issue posed. Dennis A.B. Funa v. Acting Secretary of Justice Alberto C.
Agra, etc., et al.; G.R. No. 191644. February 19, 2013

Executive Order 708: The LGU as clearinghouse for demolitions (2008)

According to E.O. 708 (s. 2008), the function of the Presidential Commission on the
Urban Poor as the sole clearing house for demolition and eviction has been devolved to the local
government units. The PCUP had this responsibility under E.O. 152
 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 708

AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 152, SERIES OF 2002, AND

DEVOLVING THE FUNCTION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION
FOR THE URBAN POOR AS THE CLEARING HOUSE FOR THE
CONDUCT OF DEMOLITION AND EVICTION ACTIVITIES
INVOLVING THE HOMELESS AND UNDERPRIVILEGED CITIZENS
TO THE RESPECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs)
HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPOSED
DEMOLITION AND EVICTION ACTIVITES OF GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 152, series of 2002, designated

the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) as the
sole clearing house for the conduct of demolition and eviction
activities involving the homeless and underprivileged citizens;

WHEREAS, Executive Order No 152, series of 2002, granted the

Precedential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP) such powers
to fulfill Its mandate of ensuring strict compliance with the
requirements of just and humane demolition and eviction under
the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the established policy of local autonomy

and decentralization, there is a need to devolve the functions and
mandate of the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor
(PCUP) to the respective Local Government Units (LGUs) In
whose territorial Jurisdiction the proposed demolition and
eviction activities of all government agencies are to be
undertaken.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA-MACAPAGAL–ARROYO, President of

the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in
me by law, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. Devolution of Clearinghouse functions. The

clearinghouse functions of the PCUP stated in Section 1 of
Executive Order No. 152, series of 2002, are hereby devolved to
the respective cities and municipalities in whose territorial
jurisdiction the proposed demolition and eviction activities of
government agencies are to be undertaken.