A complaint states a cause of action when it contains three essential elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and whatever law it arises; (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant to respect such right; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff. If any of these elements is absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action (Heirs of Loreto C. Maramag v. Maramag, G.R. No. 181132, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 774, 784 and Bank of America NT & SA v. Court of Appeals cited in Development Bank of the Phils. vs. Hon. Silverio Q. Castillo & Cristina Trinidad Zarate Romero, G.R. No. 163827, August 17, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
A cause of action is 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.).
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. 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. x x x 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.).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.