Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO. v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 191723 2014-07-23	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The accused-appellants appealed the foregoing decisions to the Court of Appeals. They prayed for their acquittal in the Murder cases; and either a similar acquittal in the Frustrated Murder case, or a downgrading of the charge to Attempted Murder.[39]
	GR NO. 165500 2006-08-30	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. ELENITA B. TRAZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners retort that the complaint did not base its claim for damages on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code,[37] and faults the Court of Appeals for making out "a cause of action for respondent on grounds not even alleged in the Complaint.[38] We, however, have held in Consolidated Dairy Products, Co. v. Court of Appeals,[39] that the applicable law to a set of facts stated in the complaint need not be set out directly. Consequently, the complaint need not state that the property right alleged to have been violated is found in Article 429 of the Civil Code, or that such violation entitled petitioner Trazo to damages pursuant to Article 20 of the same Code, which provides a cause of action therefor.
	GR NO. 165500 2006-08-30	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. ELENITA B. TRAZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners' allegations are in the nature of defenses, and, thus, cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of the cause of action. For the complaint to be dismissed for failure to state the cause of action, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint.[46] If the allegations in a complaint can furnish a sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants.[47]
	GR NO. 146726 2006-06-16	MULTI-REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MAKATI TUSCANY CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
A cause of action must always consist of two elements: (1) the plaintiff's primary right and the defendant's corresponding primary duty, whatever may be the subject to which they relate - person, character, property or contract; and (2) the delict or wrongful act or omission of the defendant, by which the primary right and duty have been violated.[26]
	GR NO. 143788 2005-09-09	DANFOSS v. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION
In order to sustain a dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action, the insufficiency must appear on the face of the complaint. And the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment thereon in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. For this purpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.[7]