Rule 2

1) G.R. No. 160604 March 28, 2008

PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER vs. HON. ELMO M. ALAMEDA

Facts:

The Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), in its August 1, 2000 issue, published an article with the heading "After Bong,
who’s next?" The article narrates the death of Expedito "Bong" Caldez, a photo correspondent of the PDI in
Cagayan. In said article, the family of the deceased correspondent laments the death of their loved one due to the
alleged erroneous diagnosis of Dr. Luz Babaran.

Later, in its September 29, 2000 issue, the PDI published another article with the heading "DOH orders probe of
fotog’s death." In said article, it was reported that the regional Department of Health (DOH) in Tuguegarao City has
started investigating the death of Expedito Caldez following an order from the DOH’s Bureau of Licensing and
Regulation.

Based on the two PDI column articles, Dr. Babaran filed a complaint for Damages. She alleged that:

1) She wrote a letter to the editor of the PDI after learning about the August 1 article but she never received
any response;
2) The 2nd article was published, and she was again singled out as having erroneously diagnosed the illness
of Expedito Caldez;
3) The DOH Fact-Finding Committee concluded that her diagnosis cannot be considered erroneous, but this
was never published by the PDI;
4) The articles portrayed her as incompetent and one whose alleged erroneous diagnosis caused the death of
Expedito Caldez; and, in causing the articles to be published, petitioners acted in bad faith.

Petitioners filed their Answer with counterclaims. In said answer, petitioners raised, among others, the following
defenses:

1) that the complaint states no cause of action against them;

2) 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;
3) that private respondent failed to allege "actual malice" on the part of the petitioners;
4) that a case for actionable libel with claims for damages has not been adequately stated in the complaint;
and,
5) that the complaint fails to establish the basis of petitioners’ liability.

Pre-trial was held and terminated, and PDI filed a Motion for a Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defense Raised
in the Answer (which is also a ground for a motion to dismiss). In said motion, it was alleged that at the pre-trial, the
court noted that one of the defenses raised by PDI was that Babaran has not delineated the participation of each of
petitioners in the publication of the alleged libelous articles. Thereupon, Babaran’s counsel asked for a few days to
determine whether the complaint should be amended to cure its defects. However, Babaran had not moved to
amend the complaint, hence, PDI filed the motion. PDI contended that:

• in libel charges, the participation of each defendant must be specifically alleged in the complaint, which
Babaran failed to do.

• Allegations in complaint are mere conclusions of law and opinions of Babaran.

PDI asked that a preliminary hearing be conducted on their affirmative defense that the complaint failed to state a
cause of action; and after that, that the complaint be dismissed.

Babaran filed a Comment/Opposition to such Motion and averred that at the pre-trial, the issue of whether or not
the complaint states a cause of action was not raised, thus is no longer an issue to be litigated.

RTC ruled in favor of Babaran, denying said Motion by PDI, and said Babaran’s complaint properly stated a
sufficient cause of action and was supported by the documentary evidence she produced. PDI filed a MR, but it
was denied.
CA: PDI filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the CA and prayed that the RTC decision be annulled and
set aside. CA dismissed PDI’s petition.

Issue: Whether a complaint which fails to validly and sufficiently state a cause of action for libel should be
dismissed because:

a. the participation of each defendant is not specifically set out in the complaint

b. the material allegations of the complaint are conclusions of law and just opinions of Babaran, not a statement of
ultimate facts

Ruling:

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. Its essential elements are as follows:

1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;

2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and

3. 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.

Of the three, the most important is the last element since it is only upon the occurrence of the last element that a
cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief. In determining whether an initiatory pleading states a cause of action, "the test is as follows:
admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer?" To be
taken into account are only the material allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and circumstances or other
matters aliunde are not considered. The court may however consider, in addition to the complaint, the appended
annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.

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.

This Court finds that petitioners raised the threshold question of whether the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause
of action.1avvphi1Hence, 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. This procedure is designed to
prevent a tedious, if not traumatic, trial in case the complaint falls short of sufficiently alleging a cause of action.

SYNOPSIS
Private respondent, Westin Seafood Market, Inc., failed to pay its rentals amounting to P8,608,284.66.
Admittedly, non-payment of rentals constituted breach of their contract; thus, pursuant to the express authority
granted petitioner under the lease agreement, petitioner repossessed the leased premises. This prompted private
respondent to file a complaint against petitioner for forcible entry with damages before the MTC of Quezon City.
This case was still pending before the MTC when private respondent instituted before the RTC of Quezon City
another action for damages against petitioner, which the latter moved to dismiss on the ground of litis
pendencia and forum shopping to no avail. The same fate awaited petitioner before the Court of Appeals which
dismissed his special civil action for certiorari and prohibition due to the failure of petitioner to file a motion for
reconsideration of the RTC order. Hence, petitioner found its way to the Supreme Court on petition for review
on certiorari.
The Supreme Court found merit to the petition The Court held that while generally a motion for reconsideration
must first be filed before resorting.to certiorari in order to give the lower court an opportunity to correct the errors
imputed to it, this rule admits of exceptions and is not intended to be applied without considering the circumstances
of the case The filing of the motion for reconsideration before availing of the remedy of certiorari is not sine qua
non when the issue raised is one purely of law, or where the error is patent or the disputed order is void, or the
questions raised on certiorari are those already squarely presented to and passed upon by the lower court. In its
motion for dismissal of the action for damages with the RTC, petitioner raised the ground that another action for
forcible entry was pending at the METC between the same parties involving the same matter and cause of action.
Outrightly rejected by the RTC, the same issue was elevated by petitioner on certiorari before the Court of
Appeals. Clearly, under the prevailing circumstance, any motion for reconsideration of the trial court would have
been a pointless exercise.
The highest Court also directed the RTC of Quezon City to dismiss the complaint for damages filed before it
by private respondent on the ground of forum shopping and for unduly splitting a single cause of action which run
counter to the rule against multiplicity of suits.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; CERTIORARI; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION MUST BE
FILED BEFORE RESORTING THERETO; EXCEPTIONS. While generally a motion for reconsideration must
first be filed before resorting to certiorari in order to give the lower court an opportunity to correct the errors
imputed to it this rule admits of exceptions and is not intended to be applied without considering the
circumstances of the case. The filing of the motion for reconsideration before availing of the remedy of
certiorari is not sine qua non when the issue raised is one purely of law, or where the error is patent or the
disputed order is void or the questions raised on certiorari are the same as those already squarely presented
to and passed upon by the lower court. In its motion for dismissal of the action for damages with the RTC
petitioner raised the ground that another action for forcible entry was pending at the MeTC between the same
parties involving the same matter and cause of action. Outrightly rejected by the RTC, the same issue was
elevated by petitioner on certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Clearly, under the prevailing circumstance,
any motion for reconsideration of the trial court would have been a pointless exercise.
2. ID.; ID.; FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL DETAINER; NO CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING THERETO
MAY BE FILED SEPARATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF CLAIM FOR RESTORATION OF
POSSESSION. Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that any person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, or against whom the
possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld, may bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial
Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, together with damages
and costs. The mandate under this rule is categorical: that all 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. Otherwise expressed, no claim for damages
arising out of forcible entry or unlawful detainer may be filed separately and independently of the claim for
restoration of possession.
3. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; RES JUDICATA; REQUISITES. Res adjudicata requires that there must be between
the action sought to be dismissed and the other action the following elements: (a) identity of parties or at least
such as representing the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the
relief being founded on the same facts; and, (c) the identity in the two (2) preceding particulars should be such
that any judgment which may be rendered on the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res adjudicata in the action under consideration.
4. ID.; ID.; CAUSE OF ACTION; CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN CASE AT BAR AROSE FROM ONLY ONE
CAUSE OF ACTION. It is likewise basic under Sec. 3 of Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended,
that a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. Under Sec. 4 of the same Rule, 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 other or others. Cause of action is
defined by Sec. 2 of Rule 2 as the act of omission by which a party violates a right of another. These
premises obtaining, there is no question at all that private respondents cause of action in the forcible entry
case and in the suit for damages is the alleged illegal retaking of possession of the leased premises by the
lessor, petitioner herein, from which all legal reliefs arise. Simply stated, the restoration of possession and
demand for actual damages in the case before the MeTC and the demand for damages with the RTC both
arise from the same cause of action, i.e., the forcible entry by petitioner into the leased premises.
5. ID.; ID.; MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS; CASE AT BAR RUNS COUNTER THERETO. A comparative study of the
two (2) complaints filed by private respondent against petitioner before the two (2) trial courts shows that not
only are the elements of res adjudicata present, at least insofar as the claim for actual and compensatory
 damages is concerned, but also that the claim for damages moral and exemplary in addition to actual and
compensatory - constitutes splitting a single cause of action. Since this runs counter to the rule against
multiplicity of suits, the dismissal of the second action becomes imperative.
6. ID.; ID.; SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION; PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM
UNNECESSARY VEXATION. A claim cannot be divided in such a way that a part of the amount of damages
may be recovered in one case and the rest, in another. In Bachrach v. Icarangal we explained that the rule
was aimed at preventing repeated litigations between the same parties in regard to the same subject of the
controversy and to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation. Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et
eadem causa.
7. ID.; ID.; FORUM SHOPPING COMMITTED IN CASE AT BAR. The records ineluctably show that the complaint
lodged by private respondent with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City contained no certification of non-
forum shopping. When petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case raising among others the ground of forum
shopping it pointed out the absence of the required certification. The amended complaint, as well as the
second and third amended complaints, attempted to rectify the error by invariably stating that there was no
other action pending between the parties involving the same cause of action although there was actually a
forcible entry case pending before the MTC of Quezon City. By its admission of a pending forcible entry case,
it is obvious that private respondent was indulging in forum shopping. While private respondent conveniently
failed to inform the RTC that it had likewise sought damages in the MTC on the basis of the same forcible
entry, the fact remains that it precisely did so, which strategem was being duplicated in the second case. This
is a compelling reason to dismiss the second case.

PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC.,vs.CA G.R. No. 123555 January 22, 1999

PRIOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; EXCEPTION

FACTS

Petitioner leased to private respondent Westin Seafood Market, Inc., a parcel of land with a commercial building.
Private respondent failed to pay rentals despite several demands by petitioner. Pursuant to the express
authority granted petitioner under lease agreement, petitioner repossessed the leased premises, inventoried
the movable properties found within and owned by private respondent and scheduled public auction for the
sale of the movables with notice to private respondent. Private respondent filed with the MeTC a complaint
against petitioner for forcible entry with damages. At the hearing parties agreed, among others, that private
respondent would deposit with the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank in the name of the MeTC, the
amount of P8,000,000.00 to guarantee the payment of its back rentals. Private respondent did not comply with
its undertaking to deposit with the designated bank the amount representing its back rentals. Instead, with the
forcible entry case still pending with the MeTC, private respondent instituted another action for damages
against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Petitioner filed a motion, to dismiss the
damage suit on the ground of litis pendencia and forum shopping. Judge Santiago denied the motion to
dismiss. Thus, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari . But the Court of
Appeals dismissed the petition due to the failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge
Santiago's order, which, it explained, was a prerequisite to the institution of a petition for certiorari and
prohibition. Petitioner, aggrieved by the decision of the appellate court, filed the instant petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court alleging that it erred in finding that petitioner failed to avail of its
plain, speedy and adequate remedy of a prior motion for reconsideration with the RTC.

ISSUE Whether or not a motion for reconsideration should have been first filed before resorting to certiorari.

HELD

No. While generally a motion for reconsideration must first be filed before resorting to certiorari in order to give the
lower court an opportunity to correct the errors imputed to it this rule admits of exceptions and is not intended
to be applied without considering the circumstances of the case. The filing of the motion for reconsideration
before availing of the remedy of certiorari is not sine qua non when the issue raised is one purely of law, or
where the error is patent or the disputed order is void, or the questions raised on certiorari are the same as
those already squarely presented to and passed upon by the lower court In its motion for dismissal of the
action for damages with the RTC petitioner raised the ground that another action for forcible entry was
pending at the MeTC between the same parties involving the same matter and cause of action. Outrightly
rejected by the RTC, the same issue was elevated by petitioner on certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
Clearly, under the prevailing circumstance, any motion for reconsideration of the trial court would have been a
pointless exercise.