JURISDICTION OF THE RTC, MTC, SANDIGANBAYAN, CA, SUPREME COURT, BP 129, RA 11576

*RULING OF THE AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF ON THE GROUND

1. Answer:

The ruling of the judge is incorrect.

Under Sec. 12, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, a defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defense
“that the claim states no cause of action” in his or her answer. Failure to raise the ground to state or
failure to state a cause of action at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.

Here, the court shall motu proprio resolve the same within 30 calendar days from the filing of the
answer.

Hence, the ruling of the judge is incorrect.

Except, if there is estoppel, litis pendencia, res judicate, prescription,

2. Answer:

The ruling of the judge is untenable.

Jurisprudence provides that a motion to dismiss grounded on failure to state a cause of action
refers only to the insufficiency of the pleading. Hence, when the affirmative defense of dismissal is
grounded on failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should be based on the facts alleged in the
complaint and not based on the truth of the allegations.

The veracity of the allegations would be material only when the motion to dismiss is based on
lack of a cause of action in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33.

Here, the judge’s ruling is based on the truth or veracity or credibility of the allegations and not
based on the facts alleged in the complaint where he held that the allegation in the motion is more
credible than those of the complaint.

Hence, the ruling of the judge is untenable.

A

Under Sec. 12 (3), Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, the affirmative relief which could be invoked in
the answer that would warrant the dismissal of the action is that “the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.”

Jurisprudence provides that where the plaintiff has a legal capacity to sue but is not the person
who should sue because he is not the real party in interest, the complaint is dismissible on the ground
that the complaint “states no cause of action”.

A cause of action involves a right of the plaintiff and a violation of this right by the defendant. The rules
refer to it as an act or omission by which a party violates the rights of another. Without a violation of
this right, there can be no cause of action, and, without this cause of action, there would be no right to
invoke the rules of procedure and file a suit against the defendant.

This right to file a suit is called a right of action. The right of action, which is procedural in
character, is the consequence of the violation of the right of the plaintiff.

Hence, the rule: There is no right of action where there is no cause of action.

As to Definition -

It is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. (Sec. 2, Rule 2, ROC, as amended)

Right of a plaintiff to bring an action and to prosecute that action until final judgment. (Marquez v. Varela,
G.R. No. L-4845, 24 Dec. 1952)

As to requisites -
1. The existence of a legal right of the plaintiff;
2. A correlative duty of the defendant to respect one’s right; and
3. An act or omission of the defendant in violation of the plaintiff’s right. (Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 168394, 6 Oct. 2008)

1. There must be a good cause (existence of a cause of action);

2. A compliance with all the conditions precedent to the bringing of the action; and
3. Right to bring and maintain the action must be in the person instituting it. (Albano, Remedial Law
Reviewer, 2014)

As to their nature
- It is predicated upon substantive law on quasi-delicts under the NCC. (Riano, 2019)
- It is procedural in character and is the consequence of the violation of the right of the plaintiff. (Riano,
2019)

As to their Basis
- Based on the allegations of the plaintiff in the complaint.
- Basis is the plaintiff’s cause of action. There is no right of action where there is no cause of action.
(Ibid.)

As to the effect of their affirmative defenses

- Not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel, etc.)

- May be taken away by the running of the statute of limitation, estoppel or other circumstances which
do not at all affect the cause of action. (Turner v. Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, G.R. No. 157479,
24 Nov. 2010)

Elements of a Cause of Action (L-A-C)

1. A legal right in favor of the plaintiff;

2. A correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such rights; and

3. An 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 with a resulting injury or damage which the latter may
maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant. (Riano, 2019, citing Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company v. Ley

a. the sole purpose of the civil action is for the resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private
offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the
accused. (Ricarze v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160451, 09 Feb. 2007)
Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal.

b. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. (Art. 100, RPC) The prime purpose of the
criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or
similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social
order.
c. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact. (Sec. 3(c), Rule
1, ROC, as amended)

As long as the remedy seeks establishment of a right, status, or a particular fact, then such may be called
a special proceeding, regardless of whether it is included in the foregoing enumeration. (De Leon &
Wilwayco, 2020)

Like civil actions, the rules on special proceedings must be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every proceeding. (De Leon &
Wilwayco, 2020)

Subject Matter of Special Proceedings (S-E-G-T-A-R-R-H-H-C-C-C-D-D)

1. Settlement of the estate of deceased persons;
2. Escheat;
3. Guardianship and custody of children;
4. Trustees;
5. Adoption;
6. Rescission and revocation of adoption;
7. Judicial approval of voluntary recognition of minor natural children;
8. Hospitalization of insane persons;
9. Habeas Corpus;
10. Change of name;
11. Constitution of family home;’
12. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.
13. Declaration of absence and death; and
14. Voluntary dissolution of corporations; (Sec. 1, Rule 72, ROC, as amended)

Under Sec. 5, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, a civil action is commenced by the filing of the original
complaint in court. If an additional defendant is impleaded in a later pleading, the action is
commenced with regard to him on the date of the filing of such later pleading, irrespective of
whether the motion for its admission, if necessary, is denied by the court.

a. It is the act of instituting two or more suits on the basis of the same cause of action. (Sec. 4, Rule
2, ROC, as amended) It is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several
parts or claims and bringing several actions thereon. (Riano, 2019, citing Quadra v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 147593, 31 July 2006) This practice, which applies not only to complaints but
also to counterclaims and crossclaims, is discouraged.

b. A: The rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect are that if two or more suits are instituted
on
the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is
available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (Sec. 4, Rule 2)
Rationale
1. Breeds multiplicity of suits;
2. Clogs the court dockets;
3. Leads to vexatious litigation;
4. Operates as an instrument of harassment; and

5. Generates unnecessary expenses to the parties. (Riano, 2019) (1999, 2005 BAR)
NOTE: The rule against splitting causes of action is not altogether one of original right but is one of
interposition based upon principles of public policy and of equity to prevent the inconvenience and
hardship incident to repeated and unnecessary litigation. (BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Vda de
Coscolluela, G.R. No. 167724, 27 June 2006)

Effect of Splitting a Cause of Action

If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment
upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (Sec. 4, Rule 2, ROC,
as amended)

Remedies against Splitting Cause of Action

The defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on either of the following grounds:
1. Litis pendentia – that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
or

2. Res judicata - if the first action has already been terminated – that the cause of action is barred by a
prior judgment or by the statute of limitations. (Section 12(a), Rule 15, ROC, as amended)

Rationale
1. Prevent repeated litigation between the same parties in regard to the same subject or controversy;
2. Protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation. Nemo debet vexare pro una et eadem causa (No
man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause); and
3. Avoid the costs and expenses incident to numerous suits. (City of Bacolod v. SM Brewery, G.R. No. L-
25134, 30 Oct. 1969)

NOTE: Litis pendentia and forum shopping have similar elements, so it is best for the counsel to move for
the dismissal based on forum shopping under Sec. 5, Rule 7 instead, and show that the party or his
counsel willfully and deliberately resorted to forum shopping. This is because the effect is a dismissal with
prejudice, in addition to the sanction for direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
a)

No, he could not because to do so would be to split a single cause of action.

Here, Mr. P has only one cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated. If a car
owner (Mr. P) sustains injuries to his person and the damage to his car as a result of the negligent driving
of the defendant (Mr. D), two rights of the plaintiff have been violated, namely, his personal right to have
his car intact and free from any damage.

Under the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot file a complaint for the recovery of damages to his
person and another complaint later to recover damages to his car.

Hence, Mr. P could not because to do so would be to split a single cause of action.

b)

The remedy of the defendant Mr. D is to file a motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia.

Under Sec. 4, Rule 2, Rules of Court, if two or more suits are instituted for a single cause of
action, “the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others”.

Hence, if the first action is pending when the second action is filed, the latter may be dismissed
based on litis pendentia, i.e., there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause (Sec. 12 [a {2}]. Rule 15, Rules of Court)

c)

The remedy of the defendant Mr. D is to file a motion to dismiss based on res judicata.

If a final judgment had been rendered in the first action when the second is filed, the latter may be
dismissed based on res judicata, i.e., that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment (Sec. 12 [a {3}],
Rule 15, Rules of Court).
The Creditor cannot file a civil action against the Debtor for collection of a sum of money and then,
subsequently file an action to foreclose the mortgage. This would be splitting a single cause of action.

It is important to bear in mind that a loan contract is an agreement separate from the mortgage
even if both refer to one and the same obligation. These contracts, however, do not constitute separate
causes of action. They are parts of one and the same cause of action. Hence, there is only one cause of
action.

In the case of Marilag v. Martinez, in loan contracts, secured by a real estate mortgage, the
creditor-mortgagee has a single cause of action against the debtor-mortgagor with two alternative
remedies to recover the debt – to file a personal action to collect a sum of money or to file a real action to
foreclose on the mortgage security. A remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or
upon the filing of the complaint for foreclosure. If the plaintiff had already instituted foreclosure
proceedings, he is now barred from availing of an ordinary action for collection of a sum of money and
vice versa.

Hence, the Creditor cannot file a civil action against the Debtor for collection of a sum of money
and then, subsequently file an action to foreclose the mortgage because this would be splitting a single
cause of action.

a)

The Rules of Court shall govern the procedure to be observed in civil actions, criminal actions,
and special proceedings (Sec. 3, Rule 1, Rules of Court) and shall also apply in all courts, expect as
otherwise provided by the Supreme Court (Sec. 2, Rule of Court).

b)

Sec. 4, Rule 1, of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that the Rules shall not apply to the
following cases:

(a) election cases;

(b) land registration cases;
(c) cadastral cases;
(d) naturalization cases; and
(e) insolvency proceedings.
 The Rules may apply to the above cases by: (a) analogy, or (b) in a suppletory character and
whatever practicable and convenient.