This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2010-03-05 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| But a judicially ordered search that fails to yield the described illicit article does not of itself render the court's order "unlawful." The Del Rosarios did not allege that respondents NBI agents violated their right by fabricating testimonies to convince the RTC of Angeles City to issue the search warrant. Their allegation that the NBI agents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law. While a motion to dismiss assumes as true the facts alleged in the complaint, such admission does not extend to conclusions of law.[3] Statements of mere conclusions of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground of failure to state a cause of action.[4] | |||||
|
2008-12-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| With no "particular injury" alleged in the complaint, there is, therefore, no delict or wrongful act or omission attributable to the petitioner that would violate the primary rights of the respondent. Without such delict or tortious act or omission, the complaint then fails to state a cause of action, because a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.[27] | |||||
|
2008-03-24 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| We find, therefore, that the allegation that respondent is an illegitimate child of the decedent suffices even without further stating that she has been so recognized or acknowledged. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action in the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged therein.[19] Assuming the fact alleged to be true, i.e., that respondent is the | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Nonetheless, in view of the wide breadth of discretion granted in certiorari proceedings in the interest of substantial justice and to prevent a substantial wrong,[15] we received the merits of the case. | |||||