XIV. 1.
MOTION TO DISMISS Heirs of Loreto Maramag vs. Maramag
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. A complaint states a cause of action when it contains the three (3) elements of a cause of action—(1) the legal right of the plaintiff; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of the legal r ight. If any of these elements is absent, the c omplaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. When a motion to dismiss is premised on this ground, the ruling thereon should be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint. 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. This is the general rule.
However, this rule is subject to well-recognized exceptions, such that there is no hypothetical admission of the veracity of the allegations if: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
the falsity of the allegations is subject to judicial notice; such allegations are legally impossible; the allegations refer to facts which are inadmissible in evidence; by the record or document in the pleading, the allegations appear unfounded; or there is evidence which has been presented to the court by stipulation of the parties or in the course of the hearings related to the case
In this case, it is clear from the petition filed before the trial court that, although petitioners are the legitimate heirs of Loreto, they were not named as beneficiaries in the insurance policies issued by Insular and Grepalife. It is evident from the face of the complaint that petitioners are not entitled to a favorable judgment. 2.
UCPB vs. Beluso
When an action is dismissed on the motion of the other party, it is only when the ground for the dismissal of an action is found in paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) that the action cannot be refiled. As regards all the other grounds, the complainant is allowed to file same action, but should take care that, this time, it is filed with the proper court or after the accomplishment of the erstwhile absent condition precedent, as the case may be. It is indeed the general rule that in cases where there are two pending actions between the same parties on the same issue, it should be the later case that should be dismissed. However, this rule is not absolute. Even if this is not the purpose for the filing of the first action, it may nevertheless be dismissed if the later action is the more appropriate vehicle for the ventilation of the issues between the parties. 3.
We distinguished a motion to dismiss for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action from a 26 motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action. The first is governed by Section 1 (g), (g) , Rule 16, while the second by Rule 33. The first [situation where the complaint does not allege a sufficient cause of action] is raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 before a responsive pleading is filed and can be determined only from the allegations in the initiatory pleading and not from evidentiary or other matters aliunde. The second [situation where the evidence does not sustain the cause of action alleged] is raised in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff has rested his case and can be resolved only on the basis of the evidence he has presented in support of his claim. The first does not concern itself with the truth and falsity of the allegations while the second arises precisely because the judge has determined the truth and falsity of the allegations and has found the evidence wanting. Hence, a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action is filed by the defendant after the plaintiff has presented his evidence on the ground that the latter has shown no right to the relief sought. While a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 is based on preliminary objections which can be ventilated before the beginning of the trial, a motion to dismiss under Rule 33 is in the nature of a demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented only after the plaintiff has rested his case 4.
Strongworld Construction vs. Perello
If the suit is not brought in the name of, or against, the real party in interest, a Motion to Dismiss may be filed on the ground that th e Complaint states no cause of ac tion. Dismissals that are based on the following grounds, to wit: (1) that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (2) that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and (3) that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds, bar the refiling of the same action or claim. Logically, the nature of the dismissal founded on any of the preceding grounds is “with prejudice” because the dismissal prevents the refiling of the sam e action or claim. Ergo, dismissals based on the rest of the grounds enumerated are without prejudice because they do not preclude the refili ng of the same action. Section 1(h), Rule 41, no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. We distinguish a dismissal with prejudice from a dismissal without without prejudice. The former disallows and bars the refiling of the complaint; whereas, the same cannot be said of a dismissal without [38] prejudice. prejudice. Likewise, where the law permits, a dismissal with prejudice is subject to the right of appeal.
Manila Banking vs. University of Baguio
Did the trial court err in dismissing the amended complaint, without trial, upon motion of respondent university?
Atty. Tranquil Salvador Remedial Law Case Doctrines. Geoanne Battad
Page 31
