This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Rules prescribe that the resolution of the motion to dismiss shall clearly and distinctly declare the reasons therefor. The directive proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing the motion for lack of merit which can often pose difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise on the higher court called upon to resolve the same, usually on certiorari.[9] In this case, the trial court merely stated:Examining the allegations in the complaint the Court finds that a cause of action sufficiently exist[s] against defendants.[10] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The allegations in a complaint[50] and the character of the relief sought[51] determine the nature of the action and the court with jurisdiction over it. The defenses set up in an answer are not determinative.[52] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.[24] The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[25] The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.[26] Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein.[27] | |||||