Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. ELENITA B. TRAZO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179918 2010-09-08	SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V. v. EFREN JALOS ABAD, J.
A cause of action is the wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.[20] Its elements consist of: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2)a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right.[21] To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, however, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.[22]
	GR No. 182673 2009-10-05	AQUALAB PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO VELASCO JR., J.
Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court that respondents' complaint sufficiently stated, under the premises, a cause of action. Not lost on us is the fact that the RTC dismissed the complaint of respondents on the grounds of prescription and in the finding that Aqualab is an innocent purchaser for value of the subject lots. Quoting Philippine Bank of Communications v. Trazo,[39] the Court said in Bayot v. Court of Appeals[40] that: A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action exists if the following elements are present, namely: (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) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative 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.[41]
	GR No. 155635 2008-11-07	MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action exists if the following elements are present, namely: (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) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative 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.[49]
	GR No. 160653 2008-07-23	JESUSITO D. LEGASPI v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein.[16] The complaint filed by petitioner sets forth the ultimate facts upon which his claim for price adjustment is based. Respondent's allegation that petitioner is not entitled to it is a matter of defense, properly raised in an answer which will then be accordingly threshed out in full-blown proceedings. Thus, the CA was correct when it ruled that the complaint does not have to establish or allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset, as this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case.[17]
	GR NO. 173979 2007-02-12	AUCTION IN MALINTA v. WARREN EMBES LUYABEN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"In case of litigation hereunder, venue shall be in the City Court or Court of First Instance of Manila as the case may be for determination of any and all questions arising thereunder."[19] Then too, the doctrine that absent qualifying or restrictive words, the venue shall either be that stated in the law or rule governing the action or the one agreed in the contract, was applied to an extra-judicial foreclosure sale under Act No. 3135.[20] In Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank,[21] where the provision on the venue employed the word "shall" to refer to the place where the foreclosure will be held, the Court ruled that said provision "lack(s) qualifying or restrictive words to indicate the exclusivity of the agreed forum," and therefore "the stipulated place is considered only as an additional, not a limiting venue."[22] The said stipulation reads:It is hereby agreed that in case of foreclosure of this mortgage under Act 3135, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 385, the auction sale shall be held at the capital of the province, if the property is within the territorial jurisdiction of the province concerned, or shall be held in the city, if the property is within the territorial jurisdiction of the city concerned.[23]