This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-06-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it bears pointing out that respondent Sixta had no cause of action against Cathay Pacific or Sampaguita Travel. The elements of a cause of action 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.[12] As culled from the records, there has been no violation of any right or breach of any duty on the part of Cathay Pacific and Sampaguita Travel. As a holder of a valid booking, Sixta had the right to expect that she would fly on the flight and on | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| A cause of action is defined as "the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."[23] In Shell Philippines v. Jalos,[24] this Court expounded on what constitutes a cause of action, to wit: A cause of action is the wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff.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.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.[25] | |||||