Civil Procedure: Rules of Court, Rule 2 Reviewer (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC)

  RULE 2

CAUSE OF ACTION

Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of - Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.

Section 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. CA=AO-PV-RA

Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. - A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. 

Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of - 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 anyone is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.

Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. - A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: CNVM

(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and

(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. 

Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. - Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.  

Notes:

Sec 2.

Q: Define cause of action.

A: Cause of Action is an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.

Elements of Cause of Action 

ROVID

1. Right 
• Existence of legal right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 
2. Obligation
• A correlative obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect and not to violate such right; and
3. Violation
• 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 action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
4. Injury
• Illegal invasion of a legal right 
5. Damage
•  Loss, hurt, or harm which results from the injury.

• Wrong or injury without damage or damage without wrong does not constitute a cause of action since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

Example of Cause of Action:

A borrows money from B promising to pay on a date certain. Upon due date, A did not pay. Does B have a cause of action? 

• RIGHT – the right of the creditor to get back his money;
• OBLIGATION – The defendant has the obligation to pay back the loan under the law on contracts;
• VIOLATION or delict or wrong – the account fell due and the debtor is supposed to pay the creditor, but the former did not pay the latter;
• DAMAGE – the creditor cannot get back his money. 

Damages arising from culpa aquiliana. You are crossing the street and you are bumped by X who was driving a car causing you injuries and being hospitalized. You also failed to report for work.

• RIGHT – it is the right of every person not to be molested. You have the right to walk peacefully and not to be harmed; 
• OBLIGATION – it is the obligation of every person driving to be careful so that he will not bump other people. You do not have to enter into a contract with a person saying you will not bump him; 
• DELICT – because of your recklessness, you violated his right by injuring him;
• DAMAGE – I have to spend money in the hospital and I lost my income. 

D borrowed money from you last year payable in January2010 but because you are in dire need of money you demanded payment. Suppose D does not pay can you file an action to collect the amount from him? Do you have a cause of action? 

• RIGHT – the creditor has the right to collect;
• OBLIGATION – every debtor has the obligation to pay; 
• DAMAGE – I have not recovered the money; 
• DELICT or wrong –  There is no delict yet because the account is payable next year. So, it is still premature to file a collection case now because one element is missing.

Failure to state a cause of action

• Refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading
• Failure to state a cause of action is no longer a ground for a motion to dismiss under the Amended Rules. 
• It is, however, one of the enumerated Affirmative Defenses that must be set out in the Answer or else it is deemed waived.

Lack of Cause of Action

• Refers to a situation where the evidence failed to prove the cause of action.
• he proper remedy when the complaint is not based on a cause of action is to file a Demurrer of Evidence.

Action distinguished from Cause of Action 

• Action
• the suit filed in court for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. (Sec. 3[a]. Rule 2)
• Cause of action
• the basis of the action filed (Sec. 1, Rule 2).

Q: Define right of action.

•  A: Right of action is the right of the plaintiff to bring an action and to prosecute that action to final judgment. (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil. 373) 
• It is the right of a person to commence and prosecute an action to obtain the relief sought. 

Q: What are the ELEMENTS of a right of action? 

A: There are three elements: 

1. The plaintiff must have a good cause of action;
2. Must be instituted by the proper party; and, 
3. He/she must have performed all conditions precedent to the filing of the action. 

De Guzman Jr v. CA – 192 SCRA 507 

The right of action springs from the cause of action, but does not accrue until all the facts which constitute the cause of action have occurred. When there is an invasion of primary rights, then and not until then does the adjective or remedial law become operative, and under it arise rights of action. There can be no right of action until there has been a wrong – a violation of a legal right – and it is then given by the adjective law.

Philam Gen Insurance v. Sweetlines

The right of action does not arise until the performance of all conditions precedent to the action. Performance or fulfillment of all conditions precedent upon which a right of action depends must be sufficiently alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show that a party has a right of action is upon the person initiating the suit.

Relief, Remedy and Subject Matter 

• Relief is the redress, protection, award or coercive measure which the plaintiff prays the court to render in his favor as consequence of the delict committed by the defendant
• Remedy is the procedure or appropriate legal form of relief of action which may be availed of by the plaintiff as the means to obtain the desired relief. 
• Subject matter is the thing, wrongful act, contract or property which is directly involved in the action, concerning which the wrong has been done and with respect to which the controversy has arisen.

Test of Sufficiency of Cause of Action

• The test of sufficiency of a cause of action rests on whether, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same, in accordance with the prayer in the complaint.

How to determine existence of cause of action 

• General rule: Determination shall be based only on facts alleged in the complaint and from no other, and the court cannot consider other matters aliunde.
• Exception: 
• Documents attached to the complaint 
• Appended annexes, other pleadings, and admissions on record

Sec. 3 Splitting of Cause of Action

Q: What is splitting a single cause of action? 

• Splitting a cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of action. It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and making each part a subject of a different complaint.

Q: How do you determine the singleness of a cause of action? 

• The singleness of a cause of action is determined by the singleness of the delict or wrong committed by the defendant and not by the number of remedies that the law grants the injured party. Meaning, a single delict may give rise to two or more possible remedies but it does not mean to say the injured party can avail of all those remedies simultaneously or one after another. 

1. Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both causes of action (Same Evidence Test);
2. Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other; and c. 
3. Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of filing of the first complaint. 

• General Rule: A contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be violated only once, even if it contains several stipulations.
• Exception: A contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at different times gives rise to as many causes of action as there are violations.
• Exception to the exception: 
• Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923
• All obligations which have matured  at the time of the suit must be integrated as one cause of action in one complaint, and those not so included would be barred. 
• Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach
• An unqualified and positive refusal to perform a contract, though the performance thereof is not yet due, may, if the renunciation goes into the whole contract, be treated as a complete breach which will entitle the injured party to bring the action at once.

Dismissal as effect of splitting of 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]. 
• The defendant facing a complaint which is infirm due to the plaintiff splitting causes of action may either allege the infirmity as an:
• Affirmative Defense in his Answer 
• or file a Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds
1. Litis Pendentia
• There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause AP-SP-SC
2. Res Judicata: 
• The cause of action is barred by a prior judgment. AB-PJ

Sec. 5 Joinder and Misjoinder of Causes of Action 

Joinder of causes of action 

• It is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone
• It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action.

Rule merely permissive 

• The rule however is purely permissive as there is no positive provision of law or any rule of jurisprudence which compels a party to join all his causes of action and bring them at one and the same time

Alternative and Cumulative Joinder of Causes of Action

Q: How may causes of action be joined? 

Causes of action may be joined either: (a) alternatively or (b) cumulatively. 

• Alternative Joinder exists when your cause of action is either one or the other. You are not seeking relief from both but from either one. 
• Cumulative Joinder exists  when you are seeking relief for all your causes of action.

Requisites CNVM

(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;

(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;

(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and

(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. 

Q: A bought a Volvo Sedan from ABC Cars for P5.0M.  ABC Cars, before delivering to A, had the car rust-proofed and tinted by XYZ Detailing. When delivered to A, the car’s upholstery was found to be damaged. ABC Cars and XYZ Detailing both deny any liability. 

Who can A sue and on what cause(s) of action? Explain. (2012 BAR) 

A: A can file an action for specific performance and damages against ABC Cars since the damage to the Volvo sedan’s upholstery was caused before delivery of the same to A, and therefore prior to the transfer of ownership to the latter (Article 1477, NCC). Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code, those who contravene the tenor of the obligation are liable for damages. Hence, an action for specific performance against ABC Corporation to deliver the agreed Volvo Sedan in the contract free from any damage or defects, with corresponding damages will lie against ABC Car.

Q: Mr. C sued Mr. D for reconveyance of property and damages, claiming that Mr. D, through fraud and forgery, was able to obtain the title to Lot No. 1234, which was previously registered in Mr. C's name. The complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court. Instead of filing an answer, Mr. D moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. In opposition, Mr. C argued that lack of cause of action is not a ground for a motion to dismiss as the ground provided under Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court is failure to state a cause of action. Distinguish the concepts of lack of cause of action and failure to state a cause of action. Based on this distinction, is Mr. C's opposition tenable? Explain. (2019 BAR) 

A: Mr. C’s opposition is tenable because the ground of lack of cause of action is not among the grounds for a motion to dismiss.

Lack of cause of action is different from failure to state cause of action. Jurisprudence provides that failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss a particular action. The former refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while the latter to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action.

Dismissal for lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff. 

Failure to state a cause of action is no longer a ground for a motion to dismiss under the Amended Rules. It is, however, one of the enumerated Affirmative Defenses that must be set out in the Answer or else it is deemed waived.

Q: Lender extended to Borrower a P 100,000.00 loan covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained another P 100,000.00 loan again covered by a promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P 300,000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his land valued at P500,000.00. Borrower defaulted on his payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to pay the P500,000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay. Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a collection suit for P500,000.00. Did Lender correctly apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action? (2015 BAR QUESTION)

Yes. The Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes of action because where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount of the claim shall be the test of jurisdiction (Sec. 5 (d), Rule 2, Rules of Court). 

Here, the total amount of the claim is P500,000.00. Hence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila has jurisdiction over the suit. At any rate, it is immaterial that one of the loans is secured by a real estate mortgage because the Lender opted to file a collection of sum of money instead of foreclosure of the said mortgage.

Q: Elise obtained a loan of ₱3 Million from Merchant Bank. Aside from executing a promissory note in favor of Merchant Bank, she executed a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot as security for her obligation. The loan fell due but remained unpaid; hence, Merchant Bank filed an action against Elise to foreclose the real estate mortgage. 

A month after, and while the foreclosure suit was pending, Merchant Bank also filed an action to recover the principal sum of ₱3 Million against Elise based on the same promissory note previously executed by the latter. 

In opposing the motion of Elise to dismiss the second action on the ground of splitting of a single cause of action, Merchant Bank argued that the ground relied upon by Elise was devoid of any legal basis considering that the two actions were based on separate contracts, namely, the contract of loan evidenced by the promissory note, and the deed of real estate mortgage. Is there a splitting of a single cause of action? Explain your answer.  (2017 BAR)

A: Yes, there is splitting of a cause of action. A creditor cannot file a civil action against the debtor for collection of the debt and subsequently file an action to foreclose the mortgage. This is an example of splitting of a single cause of action, a practice that is vexatious and oppressive.

Q: Can dolphins be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation that will affect a biodiverse coral reef? Explain briefly. (2020-2021 BAR) 

No, the dolphins cannot be plaintiffs in a suit to enjoin a land reclamation that will affect a biodiverse coral reef. Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action (Rule 3, Sec. 1 of the Rules on Civil Procedure). However, the dolphins may be represented by any Filipino citizen in a citizen’s suit to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws (Rule 2, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Procedure in Environmental Cases).

The need to give resident marine mammals legal standing has been eliminated by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws (Resident Marine Mammals of Protected Seascape Tanon Strait vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015).

Q: Jimuel filed against his wife Jewel a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, alleging as ground therefore Jewel’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court denied the petition for insufficiency of the evidence presented at the trial. 

Much later, Jimuel again filed a petition against Jewel for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. This time, the basis of Jimuel’s petition was the absence of a marriage license at the time their marriage was celebrated. Upon Jewel's motion, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of res judicata by virtue of the judgment in the first suit. Was the denial of the petition on the ground of res judicata proper? Explain briefly. (2022 BAR)

A: Yes. The ground for declaration of nullity of marriage in the first case was psychological incapacity under Rule 36 of the Family Code. On the other hand, the ground for declaration of nullity of marriage in the second case was lack of marriage license under Rule 35 of the Family Code. Although the causes of action are different, there is an identity of issues. In both cases, the issue is whether the marriage between Jimuel and Jewel is void from the beginning. Where there is no identity of causes of action, but only identity of issues, there exists res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment.

Q: What is "res judicata in prison grey"?

“Res judicata in prison grey” is the criminal concept of double jeopardy, as “res judicata” is the doctrine of civil law .

Described as “res judicata in prison grey,” the right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution of a person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted or convicted. The purpose is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall not thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of a second charge against him for the same offense 

Q: A sued B in the RTC of Quezon City, joining two causes of action: for partition of real property and breach of contract with damages. Both parties reside in Quezon City but the real property is in Manila. May the case be dismissed for improper venue? (2011 BAR) 

No, since causes of action pertaining to different venues may be joined in the RTC if one of the causes of action falls within its jurisdiction.

Q: Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X Corporation, and Y Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein that the three corporations claimed title and right of possession over the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he was uncertain which of them was entitled to the goods. After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the court declaring that X Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and executory. Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of P100,000.00 for storage charges and other advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation alleged that Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances that for his failure he was barred from interposing his claim. Raphael replied that he could not have claimed storage fees and other advances in his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet certain as to who was liable therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 BAR) 

The motion to dismiss should be granted. Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances, the amounts of which were obviously determinable at the time of the filing of the complaint. They are part of Raphael’s cause of action which he may not split. Hence, when the warehouseman asks the court to ascertain who among the defendants are entitled to the goods, he also has the right to ask who should pay for the storage fees and other related expenses. The filing of the interpleader is available as a ground for dismissal for the second case.

Q: A purchased a lot from B for P1,500,000.00. He gave a down payment of P500,000.00, signed a promissory note payable thirty days after date, and as a security for the settlement of the obligation, mortgaged the same lot to B. When the note fell due and A failed to pay, B commenced suit to recover from A the balance of P1,000,000.00. After securing a favorable judgment on his claim, B brought another action against A before the same court to foreclose the mortgage. A now files a motion to dismiss the second action on the ground of bar by prior judgment. Rule on the Motion. (1999 BAR) 

A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. When B commenced suit to collect on the promissory note, he waived his right to foreclose the mortgage. B split his cause of action. 

Q: Perry is a resident of Manila, while Ricky and Marvin are residents of Batangas City. They are the co-owners of a parcel of residential land located in Pasay City with an assessed value of P100,000.00.

Perry borrowed P100,00.00 from Ricky which promised to pay on or before December 1, 2004. However, Perry failed to pay his loan. Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvin’s proposal to partition the property. 

Ricky filed a complaint against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of Pasay City for the partition of the property. He also incorporated in his complaint his action against Perry for the collection of the latter’s P100,000.00 loan, plus interests and attorney’s fees. 

State with reasons whether it was proper for Ricky to join his causes of action in his complaint for partition against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of Pasay City. (2005 BAR) A:

It was not proper for Ricky to join his causes of action against Perry in his complaint for partition against Perry and Marvin. The causes of action may be between the same parties, Ricky and Perry, with respect to the loan but not with respect to the partition which includes Marvin. Moreover, the supposed joinder includes a special civil action, thus, not allowed under Sec. 5(b), Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. (UPLC Suggested Answers) 

Q: A secured two loans from B. One for P500,000.00 and the other for P1,000,000, payable on different dates. Both have fallen due. Is B obliged to file only one complaint against A for the recovery of both loans? Explain. 

A: NO. Joinder is only permissive since the loans are separate loans which may be governed by different terms and conditions. The two loans give rise to two separate causes of action and may be the basis of two separate complaints.