Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIANA M. BARCELONA v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 182779 2010-08-23	VICTORINA ALICE LIM LAZARO v. BREWMASTER INTERNATIONAL NACHURA, J.
The basic requirement under the rules of procedure is that a complaint must make a plain, concise, and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the plaintiff relies for his claim.[15] Ultimate facts mean the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the plaintiff's primary right and duty or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant.[16] They refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rests. The term does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material elements.[17]
	GR No. 165321 2010-08-03	RICARDO P. TORING v. TERESITA M. TORING BRION, J.
Ricardo's Reply[9] reiterated that the RTC decision thoroughly discussed the root cause of Teresita's psychological incapacity and identified it as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He claimed that sufficient proof had been adduced by the psychiatrist whose expertise on the subject cannot be doubted. Interestingly, Ricardo further argued that alleging the root cause in a petition for annulment under Article 36 of the Family Code is no longer necessary, citing Barcelona v. Court of Appeals.[10]
	GR No. 147778 2008-07-23	PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We cannot fault the SICD Hearing Panel in requiring a more in-depth and thorough determination of issues raised before it. After all, the allegations in the mandamus petition sufficiently stated a cause of action against the petitioners. Verily, the complaint should contain a concise statement of ultimate facts. Ultimate facts refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon which rest the existence of the cause of action. The term does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material elements.[8] Section 6 of the SEC Revised Rules of Procedure merely requires, thus:SECTION 6. Complaint - The complaint shall contain the names and residences of the parties, a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the complainant's cause or causes of action. It shall specify the relief/s sought, but it may add a general prayer further or other relief/s as may be deemed just and equitable.
	GR NO. 147824 2007-08-02	ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUSTO J. PARAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Barcelona v. Court of Appeals,[46] this Court categorically explained that under the New Rules, a petition for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code need not allege expert opinion on the psychological incapacity or on its root cause. What must be alleged are the physical manifestations indicative of said incapacity. The Court further held that the New Rules, being procedural in nature, apply to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their adoption.
	GR NO. 153839 2007-06-29	ISAAC VILLEGAS v. VICTOR LINGAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A cause of action is an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the legal right of the plaintiff. A complaint states a cause of action when it contains three essential elements: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises; (2) an obligation of the defendant to respect such right; and (3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff.[14]
	GR NO. 165500 2006-08-30	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. ELENITA B. TRAZO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners' claim that respondent failed to specify in the complaint the standard of proper conduct and decency required of PBCOM and the basis of invoking such standard on PBCOM[40] did not improve their position any. The complaint should state only ultimate facts, not conclusions of law, nor evidentiary facts. In determining whether the allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a cause of action, the complaint does not have to establish or allege the 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.[41] Ultimate facts refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rests. The term does not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material ingredients.[42]
	GR NO. 140189 2005-02-28	GREAT SOUTHERN MARITIME SERVICES CORPORATION v. JENNIFER ANNE B. ACUÑA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As regards the verification signed only by respondents' counsel, this procedural lapse could have warranted the outright dismissal of respondents' petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. However, it must be remembered that the rules on forum shopping, which were precisely designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice, should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of procedure - that is, to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.[30]
	GR No. 158311 2004-11-17	HUNTINGTON STEEL PRODUCTS v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
Additionally, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, now Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, must be construed and applied to achieve its purpose. The Supreme Court promulgated the Circular to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice. It should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of procedure - that is, to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.[19]