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.).
A judgment would be right only if the facts allege 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 (ARTHUR DEL ROSARIO, et al. vs. HELLENOR D. DONATO, Jr. et al. March 5, 2010, G.R. No.180595, Second Division, Abad, J.).
Relative thereto, 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. (Ibid)
A complaint must therefore allege only the ultimate facts that are sufficient to support the claim of the plaintiff. xxxxxx 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.).
