Lawyerly

GR No. 208731

2016-01-27

CARPIO, J.

We are therefore of the opinion, and so hold, that unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible. (Italics ours)[18]

GR No. 157479

2010-11-24

PHILIP TURNER v. LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION

BERSAMIN, J.

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[27] The essential elements of a cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right; and (c) an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant.[28] Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.[29]

GR No. 173375

2008-09-25

LEONCIO D. MANGAHAS v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari before this Court as we are not a trier of facts. Our jurisdiction in such a proceeding is limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. Consequently, findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal.[27] It is not the function of this Court to reexamine or reevaluate evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, adduced by the parties in the proceedings below.[28] The preceding rule however, admits of certain exceptions and has, in the past, been relaxed when the lower courts' findings were not supported by the evidence on record or were based on a misapprehension of facts,[29] or when certain relevant and undisputed facts were manifestly overlooked that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[30]

GR No. 160604

2008-03-28

PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA

AZCUNA, J.

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.[29] 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.[30]

GR NO. 159648

2007-07-27

FLUOR DANIEL v. E.B. VILLAROSA

QUISUMBING, J.

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.[12]

GR NO. 162927

2007-03-06

MARCELINO B. AGOY v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

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.[18]

GR NO. 172175

2006-10-09

SPS. EXPEDITO ZEPEDA AND ALICE D. ZEPEDA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

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. It is, thus, 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.[9] 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 consider in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.[10]

GR NO. 138703

2006-06-30

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

Prefatorily, it bears stressing that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction in such a proceeding being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. Consequently, findings of fact of the trial court and the CA are final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal.[31] It is not the function of the Court to reexamine or reevaluate evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, adduced by the parties in the proceedings below.[32] Nevertheless, the rule admits of certain exceptions and has, in the past, been relaxed when the lower courts' findings were not supported by the evidence on record or were based on a misapprehension of facts,[33] or when certain relevant and undisputed facts were manifestly overlooked that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[34]

GR NO. 160324

2005-11-15

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS

PANGANIBAN, J.

As to the issue that only questions of law may be raised in a Petition for Review,[39] the Court has recognized exceptions,[40] one of which applies to the present case. The assailed Decision was based on a misapprehension of facts,[41] which particularly related to certain stipulations in the Guarantee Agreement -- stipulations that had not been disputed by the parties. This circumstance compelled the Court to review the Contract firsthand and to make its own findings and conclusions accordingly.

GR No. 136371

2005-11-11

PRUDENTIAL BANK v. CHONNEY LIM

TINGA, J.

As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by, this Court as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence. The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[14]

	GR No. 208731 2016-01-27	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. BIR CARPIO, J.
We are therefore of the opinion, and so hold, that unless the plaintiff has a valid and subsisting cause of action at the time his action is commenced, the defect cannot be cured or remedied by the acquisition or accrual of one while the action is pending, and a supplemental complaint or an amendment setting up such after-accrued cause of action is not permissible. (Italics ours)[18]
	GR No. 157479 2010-11-24	PHILIP TURNER v. LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION BERSAMIN, J.
A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[27] The essential elements of a cause of action are: (a) the existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff; (b) a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right; and (c) an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant.[28] Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.[29]
	GR No. 173375 2008-09-25	LEONCIO D. MANGAHAS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari before this Court as we are not a trier of facts. Our jurisdiction in such a proceeding is limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. Consequently, findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal.[27] It is not the function of this Court to reexamine or reevaluate evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, adduced by the parties in the proceedings below.[28] The preceding rule however, admits of certain exceptions and has, in the past, been relaxed when the lower courts' findings were not supported by the evidence on record or were based on a misapprehension of facts,[29] or when certain relevant and undisputed facts were manifestly overlooked that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[30]
	GR No. 160604 2008-03-28	PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER v. ELMO M. ALAMEDA AZCUNA, J.
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.[29] 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.[30]
	GR NO. 159648 2007-07-27	FLUOR DANIEL v. E.B. VILLAROSA QUISUMBING, J.
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.[12]
	GR NO. 162927 2007-03-06	MARCELINO B. AGOY v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
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.[18]
	GR NO. 172175 2006-10-09	SPS. EXPEDITO ZEPEDA AND ALICE D. ZEPEDA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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. It is, thus, 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.[9] 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 consider in addition to the complaint the appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.[10]
	GR NO. 138703 2006-06-30	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Prefatorily, it bears stressing that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction in such a proceeding being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. Consequently, findings of fact of the trial court and the CA are final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal.[31] It is not the function of the Court to reexamine or reevaluate evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, adduced by the parties in the proceedings below.[32] Nevertheless, the rule admits of certain exceptions and has, in the past, been relaxed when the lower courts' findings were not supported by the evidence on record or were based on a misapprehension of facts,[33] or when certain relevant and undisputed facts were manifestly overlooked that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[34]
	GR NO. 160324 2005-11-15	INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION v. IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS PANGANIBAN, J.
As to the issue that only questions of law may be raised in a Petition for Review,[39] the Court has recognized exceptions,[40] one of which applies to the present case. The assailed Decision was based on a misapprehension of facts,[41] which particularly related to certain stipulations in the Guarantee Agreement -- stipulations that had not been disputed by the parties. This circumstance compelled the Court to review the Contract firsthand and to make its own findings and conclusions accordingly.
	GR No. 136371 2005-11-11	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. CHONNEY LIM TINGA, J.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on, and cannot be reviewed on appeal by, this Court as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence. The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[14]

SWAGMAN HOTELS v. CA