Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RITA SARMING v. CRESENCIO DY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167691 2008-09-23	CAMARINES SUR IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. EXPEDITA L. AQUINO CORONA, J.
Based on the allegations in the amended complaint, we hold that respondent stated a cause of action for damages. Respondent was in possession of the property supplied with electricity by petitioner when the electric service was disconnected. This resulted in the alleged injury complained of which can be threshed out in a trial on the merits. Whether one is a party or not in a contract is not determinative of the existence of a cause of action. Participation in a contract is not an element in considering whether or not a complaint states a cause of action[10] because even a third party outside the contract can have a cause of action against either or both contracting parties.
	GR NO. 157439 2007-07-04	MULTI-VENTURES CAPITAL v. STALWART MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While intentions involve a state of mind which may sometimes be difficult to decipher, subsequent and contemporaneous acts of the parties as well as the evidentiary facts as proved and admitted can be reflective of one's intention.[10]
	GR No. 152526 2004-11-25	RAMON R. JIMENEZ JR. v. JUAN JOSE JORDANA PANGANIBAN, J.
The nature of an action is determined by the material averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought,[9] not by the defenses asserted in the answer or motion to dismiss.[10] Thus, the complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts[11] constituting the plaintiff's cause of action.[12]
	GR No. 143556 2004-03-16	EQUITABLE PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
ascertaining the existence of a cause of action. Lack of cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint, and its existence may be determined only by the allegations of the complaint. Consideration of other facts is out of the question, and any attempt to prove extraneous circumstances is not allowed. Hence, the test of sufficiency of the facts found in a complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer in the complaint.[18] In this case, for the purpose of resolving the second issue only, if the following factual allegations in the complaint are deemed admitted, Sta. Rosa might be entitled to relief, to wit: (1) On October 21, 1993, Sta. Rosa opened a savings account with petitioner PCIB Cubao
	GR No. 144018 2003-06-23	FAR EAST BANK v. TOMAS TOH QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner avers that private respondent's claim of old age was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. In essence, petitioner wants us to re-evaluate this factual issue. Needless to stress, such re-examination is improper in a petition for review on certiorari. Here, only questions of law should be raised.[23] Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, bind this Court and are entitled to utmost respect.[24] No cogent reason having been given for us to depart therefrom we shall stand by this salutary rule.