I. KUNG FIRST CASE UNDER NG TOPIC CASE NYO, LAGAY NYO UNG TOPIC DITO FLUOR DANIEL, INC.

PHILIPPINES V E.B. VILLAROSA & PARTNERS CO., LTD. GR 159648 27 July 2007 FACTS: Fluor Daniel Inc PH (Fluor) is a domestic corporation engaged in construction and program management services. Fluor entered into an agreement with Fil-Estate Properties Inc (Fil-Estate) for the construction of the Fairways & Bluewater, Newcoast Island Resort in Boracay. Fluor hired respondents E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co. LTD (Villarosa) as one of the contractors to provide services for said project. Fluor and Villarosa entered into a separate contract for civil structure and architecture, for plumbing and fire protection, and for millworks. However Fil-Estate failed to satisfy petitioners monthly progress billing. Hence, Fluor did not pay Villarosa. Fluor told Fil-Estate that the project would have to be suspended. Fluor likewise issued a notice of suspension of work to all its contractors, including Villarosa. Villarosa responded that it deemed the contracts between them good as terminated. Villarosa thus demanded payment for suspension cost and for work so far performed. Villarosa filed a claim for a sum of money and damages at the RTC of Makati. Fluor filed a motion to dismiss on the ground the complaint failed to state a cause of action but was denied. MR was also denied. Villarosa then filed motion to amend its complaint. Fluor, on the other hand, filed a motion to suspend proceedings. The RTC granted Villarosas, but denied Fluors motion. Fluor then filed with the CA a special civil action for certiorari assailing the orders of the RTC. CA affirmed RTC decision hence this review on certiorari of the decision of the CA. Fluor contends that the complaint utterly and miserably failed to state the operative facts which would give rise to a cause of action against it. Petitioner insists that the annexes attached to respondents complaint and other pleadings should be considered in determining respondents cause of action, or lack of it. Fluor also maintains that the CA committed an error when it refused to consider the annexes to the complaint, showing Villarosas admission that payment of its billings was subject to the condition of timely receipt of similar payments from petitioner. Vilarosa, however, counters that its complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against petitioner and that the annexes attached to the complaint bear no relevance, not having been

CIVPRO | ATTY. NAVA

admitted by stipulation. Respondent asserts that the three elements of a cause of action are all present in this case, namely: (i) legal right of respondent to demand payment from petitioner; (ii) obligation of petitioner to pay respondent; and (iii) failure of petitioner to pay respondent. Respondent stresses that petitioner cannot evade its liability to pay by claiming that payments to respondent are subject to timely receipt of similar payments from Fil-Estate. ISSUES: w/n the complaint of Villarosa sufficiently states a cause of action against Fluor. YES w/n the annexes attached to the complaint should be considered in determining whether or not Villarosas complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against Fluor. YES HELD: Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: SEC. 2. Cause of action, defined. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. The essential elements of a cause of action 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 defendant not to violate such right; and 3) An act or omission on the part of the 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 relief. It is, thus, only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action arises, giving the plaintiff a right to file an action in court for recovery of damages or other relief. The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. That in determining sufficiency of cause of action, the court takes into account only the material allegations of the complaint and no other, is not a hard and fast rule. In some cases, the court considers the documents attached to the complaint to truly determine sufficiency of cause of action. SC has ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency of cause of action if it appears clearly from the complaint and its attachments that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The converse is also true. The complaint may be dismissed for lack of cause of action if it is obvious from the complaint and its annexes that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
Note: annexed to the subject complaint are three contracts, namely the contract for civil structure and architecture, the contract for plumbing and fire protection, and the contract for millworks. Records show that recurring in each of the said contracts is the provision that payment by petitioner shall be subject to its timely receipt of similar 1

CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | HAUTEA| LAIDAN| PRESBITERO | SANTOS

CIVPRO | ATTY. NAVA

payments from Fil-Estate. The complaint, however, failed to state that the said condition had been fulfilled. Without the said condition having taken place, Fluor cannot be said to have breached its obligation to pay thus there is no cause of action.

ISSUES: w/n a compromise between the spouses is an essential requirement before suits can be filed between them and failure to comply will warrant a dismissal. YES but HELD: SC holds that Cecilio is correct on the general rule, but is nevertheless constrained to hold that the CA and the CFI committed no error in refusing to dismiss the complaint, for on its face, the same involved a claim for future support that under Article 2035 of the Civil Code can not be subject of a valid compromise, and is, therefore, outside the sphere of application of Article 222 of the Code upon which petitioner relies. This appears from the last proviso of said Article 222, already quoted. Even the answer below, in attacking the validity of the marriage of plaintiff-respondent Luisa de la Rosa to defendant-petitioner Cecilio Mendoza, poses a non-compromisable issue. ART. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (1) x x x; (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (3) x x x; (4) Future support. Since no valid compromise is possible on these issues, a showing of previous efforts to compromise them would be superfluous.

10. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FILING CECILIO MENDOZA V CA GR L-23102 24 April 1967 FACTS: Luisa Mendoza filed a case against Cecilio Mendoza (petitioner) for support. Luisa averred that she was married to Cecilio and that they lived together as husband and wife until Cecilio departed for the US to further his studies and practice his profession. Cecilio w/o justifiable cause or reason neglected and abandoned Luisa. Luisa further alleges she was sick, pregnant and had no means to support herself and Cecilio, employed in a hospital in the US earned $200 a mos and also partly owned lots in Nueve Ecija. Cecilio filed a motion to dismiss based on the lack of jurisdiction and improper venue but was denied. Cecilio filed a counter claim, putting in issue the validity of their marriage. Cecilio filed another motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it contained no allegation that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made. CFI denied second motion to dismiss. Art 222 of the Civil Code provides: No suit shall be filed or maintained between members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed, subject to the imitations of Art. 2035 Cecilior argues that Article 222 requires that before a suit between members of the same family (in this case between husband and wife) is filed or maintained, it must appear that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, and the only way to make it so appear when the suit is filed is by a proper averment to that effect in the complaint. Since the law forbids a suit being initiated (filed) or maintained unless such efforts at compromise appear, the showing that efforts in question were made is a condition precedent to the existence of the cause of action. It follows that the failure of the complaint to plead that plaintiff previously tried in earnest to reach a settlement out of court renders it assailable for lack of cause of action and it may be so attacked at any stage of the case even on appeal

CONSUNJI| ESPIRITU | LUMANOG | MAGPANTAY | MANUEL | RELLOSA | SOLLANO || ALCANTARA | CAMIA| DEVESA | EVANGELISTA | HAUTEA| LAIDAN| PRESBITERO | SANTOS