JUSTICE ROBERTO ABAD: Statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action

A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff (CHUA vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).

And judgment would be right only if the facts he alleges constitute a cause of action that consists of three elements: (1) the plaintiff’s legal right in the matter; (2) the defendant’s corresponding obligation to honor or respect such right; and (3) the defendant’s subsequent violation of the right. Absent any of these, the complaint would have failed to state a cause of action. The test of sufficiency of a complaint is whether or not, assuming the truth of the facts that plaintiff alleges in it, the court can render judgment granting him the judicial assistance he seeks.

Essentially, however, in the case of Arthur Del Rosario, et. al.,  vs. Hellenor Donato,Jr. et. al., all that the Del Rosarios allege is that respondents NBI agents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant against them, evidenced by the fact that, contrary to the sworn statements used to get such warrant, the NBI agents found no fake Marlboro cigarettes in petitioner Alexander del Rosario's premises.

             But a judicially ordered search that fails to yield the described illicit article does not of itself render the court's order "unlawful." The Del Rosarios did not allege that respondents NBI agents violated their right by fabricating testimonies to convince the RTC of Angeles City to issue the search warrant. Their allegation that the NBI agents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law. While a motion to dismiss assumes as true the facts alleged in the complaint, such admission does not extend to conclusions of law. (Drilon v. Court of Appeals, 409 Phil. 14, 28 (2001). Statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground of failure to state a cause of action. (Philippine National Bank v. Encina, G.R. No. 174055, February 12, 2008, 544 SCRA 608, 620).

Further, the allegation that the search warrant in this case was served in a malicious manner is also not sufficient. Allegations of bad faith, malice, and other related words without ultimate facts to support the same are mere conclusions of law (Drilon v. Court of Appeals, supra).

            The Del Rosarios' broad assertion in their complaint that the search was conducted "in full and plain view of members of the community" does not likewise support their claim that such search was maliciously enforced. There is nothing inherently wrong with search warrants being enforced in full view of neighbors. In fact, when the respondent or his representative is not present during the search, the rules require that it be done in the presence of two residents of the same locality. These safeguards exist to protect persons from possible abuses that may occur if searches were done surreptitiously or clandestinely. Accordingly, statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground of failure to state a cause of action (ARTHUR DEL ROSARIO, et al. vs. HELLENOR D. DONATO, Jr. et al. March 5, 2010, G.R. No.180595, Second Division, Abad, J.).