Ilano vs. Español
G.R. No. 161756. December 16, 2005
MAIN TOPIC – Rule 12, Section 1 – Bill of Particulars
- Amelia Alonzo, private respondent, is a trusted employee of Victoria Ilano. When Ilano left for the United States for medical check-up, Alonzo was entrusted with Ilano‘s Metrobank Check Book which contains both signed and unsigned blank checks.
- Ilano contends that Alonzo, by means of deceit and abuse of confidence succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and signed blank checks. She further alleged that there is no consent in the issuance of the PN’s thus must be declared null and void. She also impleaded ESTELA CAMACLANG, ALLAN CAMACLANG and ESTELITA LEGASPI as co-defendants who likewise was able to induce plaintiff to sign several undated blank checks for the total amount of Php 3,031,600.00. A Complaint for Revocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Alonzo et al. before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite.
- The named defendants-herein respondents filed their respective Answers invoking, among other grounds for dismissal, lack of cause of action, for while the checks subject of the complaint had been issued on account and for value, some had been dishonored due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED”; and the allegations in the complaint are bare and general.
- The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint for failure “to allege the ultimate facts”—bases of petitioners claim that her right was violated and that she suffered damages thereby. The CA affirmed the dismissal order of the trial court, the appellate court held that the complaint are only general averments of fraud, deceit and bad faith and that the elements of a cause of action are absent in the case
- Whether or not the trials court’s dismissal of petitioner’s complaint on the ground that the complaint are only general averments of fraud, deceit and bad faith and that the elements of a cause of action are absent in the case
NO. A cause of action has three elements: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.
While some of the allegations may lack particulars, and are in the form of conclusions of law, the elements of a cause of action are present. For even if some are not stated with particularity, petitioner alleged 1) her legal right not to be bound by the instruments which were bereft of consideration and to which her consent was vitiated; 2) the correlative obligation on the part of the defendants-respondents to respect said right; and 3) the act of the defendants-respondents in procuring her signature on the instruments through “deceit,” “abuse of confidence” machination,” “fraud,” “falsification,” “forgery,” “defraudation,” and “bad faith,” and “with malice, malevolence and selfish intent.”
Where the allegations of a complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, its dismissal is not proper for the defendant may ask for more particulars.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The March 21, 2003 decision of the appellate court affirming the October 12, 2000 Order of the trial court, Branch 20 of the RTC of Imus, Cavite, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in light of the foregoing discussions. The trial court is DIRECTED to REINSTATE Civil Case No. 2079-00 to its docket and take further proceedings thereon only insofar as the complaint seeks the revocation/cancellation of the subject promissory notes and damages.
Let the records of the case be then REMANDED to the trial court. SO ORDERED.
Bill of Particulars; Where the allegations of a complaint are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusion, its dismissal is not proper for the defendant may ask for more particulars.