C. Cause of Action

Question 1

Elements of Cause of Action

Answer 1

1. A legal right in favor of the plaintiff;
2. A correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights; and
3. An act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff; or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief with a resulting injury or damage which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant. (Riano, 2019, citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Ley

Question 2

Right of Action vs. Cause of Action

As to definition:

Answer 2

COA: It is the act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another. (Sec. 2, Rule 2, ROC, as amended)

ROA: Right of a plaintiff to bring an action and to prosecute that action until final judgment. (Marquez v. Varela, G.R. No. L-4845, 24 Dec. 1952)

Question 3

Right of Action vs. Cause of Action

As to their requisites

Answer 3

COA:

1. The existence of a legal right of the plaintiff;
2. A correlative duty of the defendant to respect one’s right; and
3. An act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff’s right.

(Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, 6 Oct. 2008)

ROA:
1. There must be a good cause (existence of a cause of action);
2. A compliance with all the conditions precedent to the bringing of the action; and
3. Right to bring and maintain the action must be in the person instituting it.
(Albano, Remedial Law Reviewer, 2014)

Question 4

Right of Action vs. Cause of Action

As to their nature

Answer 4

COA:
It is predicated upon substantive law on quasi-delicts under the NCC. (Riano, 2019)

ROA: It is procedural in character and is the consequence of the violation of the right of the plaintiff. (Riano, 2019)

Question 5

COA v. ROA

As to their basis:

Answer 5

As to their basis:

COA: Based on the allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint.
ROA: Basis is the plaintiff’s cause of action. There is no right of action where there is no cause of action. (Ibid.)

Question 6

COA v. ROA

As to the effect of their affirmative defense

Answer 6

COA: Not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.)

ROA: May be taken away by the running of the statute of limitation, estoppel or other circumstances which do not at all affect the cause of action. (Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 157479, 24 Nov. 2010)

Question 7

Failure to State a Cause of Action vs. Lack of Cause of Action (2019 BAR)

As to their definition

Answer 7

FTS:Insufficiency of allegation in the pleading. (Dabuco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133775, 20 Jan. 2000)

LOC: Where the evidence does not sustain the cause of action. (Domondon v. Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1696, 20 June 2002)

Question 8

FTS v. LOC

as to how interposed

Answer 8

As to how it is interposed

FTS: May be raised as an affirmative defense in the defendant’s answer. (Sec. 12, Rule 8, ROC, as amended)

LOC: Raised in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff has rested his case. (Enojas v. Comelec, G.R. No. 129938, 12 Dec. 1997)

Question 9

FTS v. LOC

As to how it was determined

Answer 9

As to how it was determined

FTS: Determined only from the allegations of the pleading and not from evidentiary matters. (Riano, 2019, citing Domondon v. Lopez, supra)
LOC: Resolved only on the basis of the evidence he presented in support of his claim. (Riano, 2019 citing Domondon v. Lopez, supra

Question 10

FTS v. LOC

As to when it is made

Answer 10

As to when it is made

FTS: Can be made at the earliest stages of an action (Dabuco v. CA, G.R. No. 133775, 20 Jan. 2000), i.e., filed in an answer

LOC: Made after questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions, or evidence presented. (Dabuco v. CA, G.R. No. 133775, 20 Jan. 2000)

Question 11

FTS v. LOC

As to whether dismissal amounts to res judicata

Answer 11

FTS: No, dismissal due to the failure to state a cause of action does not constitute res judicata. Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action does not bar the subsequent re-filing of the complaint. (Sec. 13, Rule 15, ROC, as amended)

LOC: Yes, because dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action is a decision on the merits.

Question 12

Effect of Lack of Cause of Action on the
Jurisdiction of the Court

Answer 12

Lack of cause of action does not affect the authority of a court to hear and decide a given case, if the court has jurisdiction over its subject matter, over the parties therein, and, in an action in rem, over the res. (Herrera, 2007)

Question 13

Test of the Sufficiency of a Cause of Action

Answer 13

GR: The sufficiency of the statement of cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint, and its existence is only determined by the allegations of the complaint. (Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Roxas, G.R. No. 133576, 13 July 2000)

XPN: In some cases, the Court considered, in addition to the complaint, the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records so that such annexes are considered as parts of the complaint. (Riano, 2019, citing Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, 6 Oct. 2008)

NOTE: The truth or falsity of the allegations is beside the point because the allegations in the complaint are hypothetically admitted. (Riano, 2019, citing PNB v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121251,

Question 14

Q: Spouses Bernabe and Rhodora Pamaran owned adjacent lots respectively. Rosa Pamaran built her residential house on these lots with the consent of Rhodora and spouses Bernabe. Rhodora and Spouses Bernabe constituted real mortgages over their lots as security for loans obtained from the Bank of Commerce (Bankcom). Rosa claimed that Bankcom neither included her house in determining the loan amount nor obtained her consent to the real estate mortgage. Later, Bankcom filed petitions for issuance of writs of possession, which were granted by the RTC of Muntinlupa City. Rosa prayed that Bankcom be ordered to pay her damages as she was dispossessed of her house by reason of the writs. The RTC Olongapo granted Bankcom’s motion to dismiss and accordingly, dismissed the Complaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action and of improper venue. How should Bankcom’s Motion to Dismiss be resolved?

Answer 14

A: Bankcom’s motion to dismiss must be resolved with reference to the allegations in the Complaint assuming them to be true. The RTC Olongapo does not need to inquire on the truthfulness of these allegations and declare them to be false. If it does, such court would be denying the plaintiff of her right to due process of law. In determining whether a complaint states or does not state a cause of action, the court must hypothetically admit the truth of the allegations and determine if it may grant the relief prayed for based on them. (Rosa Pamaran v. Bank of Commerce, G.R. No. 205753, 04 July 2016)

Question 15

Tests to Ascertain whether two Suits relate to a Single or Common Cause of Action (E-D-E)

Answer 15

1. Evidence – Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action (Same Evidence Test);
2. Defenses – Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other; and
3. Existence – Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint (Umale v. Canoga Park Development. Corporation, G.R. No. 167246, 20 July 2011)

Question 16

Splitting of Cause of Action

Answer 16

It is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action. (Sec. 4, Rule 2, ROC, as amended) It is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and bringing several actions thereon. (Riano, 2019, citing Quadra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147593, 31 July 2006) This practice, which applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and crossclaims, is discouraged

Question 17

Effect of Splitting a Cause of Action

Answer 17

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same 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, ROC, as amended)

Question 18

Remedies against Splitting Cause of Action

Answer 18

The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on either of the following grounds:

1. Litis pendentia – that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; or
2. Res judicata - if the first action has already been terminated – that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations. (Section 12(a), Rule 15, ROC, as amended)

Question 19

Joinder of Causes of Action (2005 BAR)

Answer 19

It is the assertion of as many causes of action a party may have against another in one pleading alone. (Sec. 5, Rule 2, ROC, as amended) It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action. (Riano, 2019, citing Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. No. 192073, 11 Sept. 2013)

Question 20

Requisites of Joinder of Causes of Action

Answer 20

1. The party shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties (Sec. 6, Rule 3, ROC, as amended): a. Right to relief exists in favor of or against several persons; b. Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transaction; and c. There is a common question of law of law or fact.
2. The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules;
3. Where the 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 falls within the jurisdiction of said court and venue lies therein; and
4. Totality Test - Where claims in all causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test for jurisdiction. (Sec. 5, Rule 2, ROC, as amended) (2002 BAR)

Question 21

Joinder of Claims in Small Claims cases

Answer 21

The plaintiff may join, in a single statement of claim, one or more separate small claims against a defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed P1,000,000.00. (Rules on Expedited Procedures in First Level Courts, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, as amended)

Question 22

Misjoinder of Causes of Action

Answer 22

There is a misjoinder when two or more causes of action were joined in one complaint when they should not be so joined.

This is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately by filing a motion in relation thereto. (Sec. 6, Rule 2, ROC, as amended)

There is no sanction against non-joinder of separate causes of action. However, if the plaintiff refuses to sever the misjoined cause of action, the complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17. (ROC, as amended

Question 23

Q: P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTCManila, the cause of action against A being an overdue promissory note for P300,000 and that against B being an alleged balance of P300,00 on the purchase of goods sold on credit. Does the RTC-Manila have jurisdiction over the case? (2002 BAR)

Answer 23

A: NO, the RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over the case. The joinder of the causes of action against A and B is not proper. For a joinder of causes of action against several defendants to be proper, the joinder must comply with the rules on joinder of the parties under Sec. 6 of Rule 3. This rule requires that the causes of action joined should arise out of the same transactions and there exists a question of law or facts common to both. These requirements are not met under the facts.

Since the causes of action cannot be joined, each action must be the subject of a separate action. The totality rule has no application under the facts of the case. The amount of each claim falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC

Question 24

Joinder of Causes of Action vs. Joinder of Parties

Answer 24

JCA
It refers to the procedural device whereby a party who asserts various claims against the same or several parties, file all his claims against them in a single complaint
It will not necessarily involve a joinder of parties.
Merely permissive, as evidenced by the use of the word “may” instead of “shall.” (Sec. 5, Rule 2, ROC, as amended; Riano, 2019) (1999 BAR)

JOP

It may be employed when there are various causes of actions that accrue in favor of one or more plaintiffs against one or more defendants i.e., there is plurality of parties.
It may or may not be involved in a joinder of causes of actions. (Riano, 2019
Indispensable parties – required to be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (Sec. 7, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)

Necessary party – one who is not indispensable but ought to be joined if complete relief is to be accorded, or for a complete determination or settlement of the action. (Sec. 8, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)