Lourdes Suites vs Binaro

Case Digest GR 2047129 Aug 6 2014

Full Text
Facts:
Lourdes Suites filed before the MeTC a small-claims complaint against Binaro for nonpayment of
penalty charges on its rented rooms. Binaro responded with a counterclaim. Lourdes Suites
impugned the validity of Binaros pleading stating that it did not comply with the form of an Answer as
required in Rule 11, Sec 1 of the Rules of Court.
The MeTC, after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of cause of
action. Lourdes Suites filed a certiorari before the RTC arguing that lack of cause of action is not a
valid ground for dismissal of cases, much more a dismissal with prejudice. It contends that a
complaint even after the presentation of evidence cannot be dismissed on ground of lack of cause of
action because it is not expressly provided for under the Rules on Small Claims Cases and the Rules
of Civil Procedure, and that if there was a failure to prove a cause of action the only available remedy
would be a demurrer filed by the defendant.
The RTC ruled that there was no grave of abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC. The MR was
also denied. Hence, Lourdes Suites brought the issue to the SC via petition for review under Rule
45.
Issue: W/N dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action is proper under the Rules of Court
Yes. The courts are not precluded from dismissing a case for lack of cause of action such as
insufficiency of evidence. In civil cases, courts must determine if the plaintiff was able to prove his
case by a preponderance of evidence.
The basis of the MeTC in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action is the failure of plaintiff
to preponderantly establish its claim by clear and convincing evidence. Hence, MeTC did not commit
grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action, as it referred
to the evidence presented and not to the allegations in the Complaint.
The dismissal of the complaint with prejudice is likewise not an exercise of wanton or palpable
discretion. This case is an action for small claims where decisions are rendered final and
unappealable; hence, a decision dismissing it is necessarily with prejudice. ##
Notes
Hide

Failure to State a Cause of Action vs Lack of Cause of Action (Macaslang vs Zamora,

2011)
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from
each other. On the one hand, failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency
of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On
the other hand, lack of cause of action refers to a situation where the evidence does not
prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Justice Regalado, a recognized
commentator on remedial law, has explained the distinction:
What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of action which is provided
in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of Rule
10, which was also included as the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers to
the situation where the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is, therefore, a
matter of insufficiency of evidence.
The remedy in the failure to state a cause of action is to move for dismissal of the
pleading, while the remedy in the lack of cause of action is to demur to the evidence,
hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure
would consequently be to require the pleading to state a cause of action, by timely
objection to its deficiency; or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion
is warranted.
Hide
Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss
Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the
complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the
following grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid, waived,
abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is enforceable under the provisions of

the statute of frauds; and

(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
Hide
Rule 33 Demurrer to Evidence
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. After the plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that
upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is
denied he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on
appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence.