Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO D. TODARO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 172301 2015-08-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD LEONEN, J.
"Forum non conveniens literally translates to 'the forum is inconvenient.'"[96] This doctrine applies in conflicts of law cases. It gives courts the choice of not assuming jurisdiction when it appears that it is not the most convenient forum and the parties may seek redress in another one.[97] It is a device "designed to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing litigants that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or dispute resolution) were left entirely to the whim of either party."[98]
	GR No. 198587 2015-01-14	SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. MA. JOPETTE M. REBESENCIO LEONEN, J.
Forum non conveniens literally translates to "the forum is inconvenient."[62] It is a concept in private international law and was devised to combat the "less than honorable" reasons and excuses that litigants use to secure procedural advantages, annoy and harass defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and select a "friendlier" venue.[63] Thus, the doctrine of forum non conveniens addresses the same rationale that the rule against forum shopping does, albeit on a multijurisdictional scale.
	GR Nos. 175277 & 175285 2013-09-11	UNICAPITAL v. RAFAEL JOSE CONSING PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
A cause of action is defined as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[61] It is well-settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint.[62] In this relation, a complaint is said to sufficiently assert a cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for.[63] Thus, if the allegations furnish adequate basis by which the complaint can be maintained, then the same should not be dismissed, regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants.[64] As edified in the case of Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. v. Todaro,[65] citing Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Limited. v. Catalan[66] (HSBC):The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Stated otherwise, may the court render a valid judgment upon the facts alleged therein? The inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations. If the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis on which it can be maintained, it should not be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be presented by the defendants.[67] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 175799 2011-11-28	NM ROTHSCHILD v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is basic that "[a] cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another."[18] Its elements are the following: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right.[19] We have held that to sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.[20]
	GR No. 172927 2010-02-11	RONILO SORREDA v. CAMBRIDGE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION CORONA, J.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint is determined by the allegations of the complaint.[19] In Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. v. Todaro,[20] the Court reiterated that where no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties, and the Labor Code or any labor statute or collective bargaining agreement is not needed to resolve any issue raised by them, it is the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction. Thus it has been consistently held that the determination of the existence of a contract as well as the payment of damages is inherently civil in nature.[21] A labor arbiter may only take cognizance of a case and award damages where the claim for such damages arises out of an employer-employee relationship.[22]
	GR No. 176014 2009-09-17	ALICE VITANGCOL v. NEW VISTA PROPERTIES VELASCO JR., J.
In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations.[26] The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint constituting a cause of action lies on whether or not the court, admitting the facts alleged, could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.[27] And to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, it must be shown that the claim for relief in the complaint does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite, or uncertain.[28]
	GR No. 170750 2009-04-07	HEIRS OF TOMAS DOLLETON v. FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners' Complaints should not have been dismissed despite the seeming error made by petitioners in their prayer. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.[38]
	GR No. 155990 2007-09-12	UNIVERSAL AQUARIUS v. Q.C. HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The complaint does not have to establish or allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case.[25] To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain.[26]