B. CAUSE OF ACTION Flashcards
Meaning of cause of action
A cause of action is an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another [Sec. 2, Rule 2]
Without a cause of action, one cannot seek judicial relief for a violation of one’s rights because every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action [Sec. 1, Rule 2]
Elements of a cause of action
- Plaintiff’s legal right;
- Defendant’s correlative obligation to respect plaintiff’s right; and
- Defendant’s act/omission in violation of plaintiff’s right
[Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios, G.R. No. L-1539 (1947)]
NOTE: Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. [Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 157479, November 24, 2010]
When a cause of action must exist
A cause of action must exist at the time of the filing of the complaint – else, the case shall be dismissible for being a groundless suit. [Swagman Hotels and Travel v. CA, G.R. No. 161135 (2005), reiterating Surigao Mine Exploration v. Harris, G.R. No. L-45543 (1939)]
Distinguish: Right of Action and Cause of Action
[RIGHT OF ACTION]
- The remedial right or right to relief granted by law to a party to institute an action against a person who has committed a delict or wrong against him.
- Right to sue as a consequence of the delict.
- A right of action is determined by substantive law.
[CAUSE OF ACTION]
- The delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. [Racoma v. Fortich, G.R. No. L-29380 (1971)]
- The delict or wrong.
- The cause of action of the plaintiff is determined by the averments in the pleading regarding the acts committed by the defendant.
There can be no right of action without a cause of action being first established. [Español v. The Chairman and Members of the Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-44616 (1985)]
Failure to state a cause of action; effect
Failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading.
Failure to state a cause of action is no longer a ground for a motion to dismiss under the Amended Rules. The proper remedy when there is a failure to state a cause of action is to allege the same as an affirmative defense in the Answer. [Sec. 12(4), Rule 8]
Failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings.
Lack of Cause of Action
[LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION]
- Refers to a situation where the evidence failed to prove the cause of action.
- The proper remedy when the complaint is not based on a cause of action is to file a Demurrer of Evidence. [Rule 33]
Lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Test of Sufficiency of Cause of Action
The test of sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same, in accordance with the prayer in the complaint. [Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No. 181132 (2009)]
Splitting a single cause of action
The act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action [Sec. 4, Rule 2], or splitting a single cause of action, is prohibited by the Rules. Such is referred to as “splitting a single cause of action”. A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. [Sec. 3, Rule 2]
The tests to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action are:
a. Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both causes of action (Same Evidence Test);
b. Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other (Same Defense Test); and
c. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing of the first complaint.
[Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corp., G.R. No. 167246 (2011)]
Dismissal as effect of splitting of 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 [Sec. 4, Rule 2]
The defendant facing a complaint which is infirm due to the plaintiff splitting causes of action may either allege the infirmity as an Affirmative Defense in his Answer [Sec. 5(b), Rule 6], or file a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds:
a. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause [Sec. 12 (a)(2), Rule 15], or
b. The cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. [Sec. 12 (a)(3), Rule 15]
Res judicata
A case is barred by prior judgment or res judicata when the following elements concur:
(a) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
(b) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
(c) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. [Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015]
Litis pendencia
Litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It requires:
- identity of the parties in the two actions;
- substantial identity in the causes of action and in the reliefs sought by the parties; and
- the identity between the two actions should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.
Where should cases for forcible entry and unlawful detainer be filed?
ll cases for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be filed before the Municipal Trial Court which shall include not only the plea for restoration of possession but also all claims for damages and costs arising therefrom.
[Progressive Development Corp. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 637]
Joinder of causes of action
Joinder of causes of action
is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone. [Sec. 5, Rule 2] It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action. [1 Riano 187, 2016 Bantam Ed.]
Rule merely permissive
The rule however is purely permissive as there is no positive provision of law or any rule of jurisprudence which compels a party to join all his causes of action and bring them at one and the same time. [Nabus v. CA, G.R. No. 91670 (1991)]
Requisites
a. The plaintiff asserts numerous causes of action in one pleading
b. The causes of action are against the opposing party
c. The party joining the causes of action complies with the rules on joinder of parties under Sec 6, Rule 3, and
d. The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules.
Where causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC provided one of the causes of action are within that court’s jurisdiction and venue lies therein.
[Sec. 5, Rule 2]
Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction
Misjoinder of causes of action
There is misjoinder of causes of action when conditions for joinder under Section 5, Rule 2 are not met. [Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417 (2005)]
An erroneously joined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. Misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal of an action [Sec. 6, Rule 2]
