Myline Cordial

Victoria J. Ilano represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Milo Antonio C. Ilano vs. Hon. Dolores L. Espanol, in her capacity as Executive Judge, RTC of Imus, Cavite, Br. 90, et. al
G.R. No. 161756. December 16, 2005
478 SCRA 365

FACTS:
Victoria J. Ilano filed a complaint for Revocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injun

ction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against private respondents. The petitioner alleged, among other things, that respondents, through deceit, abuse of confidence machination, fraud, falsification, forgery, defraudation, and bad faith, and with malice, malevolence and selfish intent, succeeded in inducing her to sign antedated promissory notes and some blank checks, and by taking undue advantage of her signature on some other blank checks, succeeded in procuring them, even if there was no consideration for all of these instruments on account of which she suffered anxiety, tension, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and embarrassment. However, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to allege the ultimate facts-bases of petitioners claim that her right was violated and that she suffered damages.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite at Imus, for lack of cause of action.

For recital of the allegations in the complaint, see photo.
ISSUES:
1. Remedial Law: Whether or not petitioner’s complaint failed to state a cause of action.
2. Commercial Law: Is validity and negotiability of Check No. 0084078, drawn against another account of petitioner and was dishonored on January 12, 2000 due to Account Closed, affected by the fact that its date of issue bears only the year 1999?
RULING:
1. 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.

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. In determining the presence of these elements, inquiry is confined to the four corners of the complaint including its annexes, they being parts thereof. If these elements are absent, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action.

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.

2. No. Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that the validity and negotiable character of an instrument are not affected by the fact that:
(a) It is not dated; or
(b) Does not specify the value given, or that any value had been given therefor; or
(c) Does not specify the place where it is drawn or the place where it is payable; or
(d) Bears a seal; or
(e) Designates a particular kind of current money in which payment is to be made.

NOTES:
A motion for bill of particulars may not call for matters which should form part of the proof of the complaint upon trial. (Salita vs. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100 [1994])

As long as the complaint contains these three elements – (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; (3) an act or ommission on the part of such defendant violative 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 – a cause of action exists even though the allegations therein are vague. (Virata vs. Sandiganbayan, 272 SCRA 661 {1997})

The issue of defective Information, on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, should be raised in a motion to quash or a motion for a bill of particulars, and if an accused fails to take this seasonable step he will be deemed to have waived the defect in the said information. (People vs. Razonable, 330 SCRA 562 [2000])