Manaloto v. Veloso III

Manaloto v.
Veloso III - Veloso may have stated the same factual antecedents that transpired in the
GR No. 171365 | 632 SCRA 347 | October 6, 2010 unlawful detainer case, such allegations were necessary to give an overview
Petition: Petition for review on certiorari of the facts leading to the institution of another case between the parties
Petitioner: ERMELINDA C. MANALOTO, AURORA J. CIFRA, FLORDELIZA J. before the RTC acting in its original jurisdiction.
ARCILLA, LOURDES J. CATALAN, ETHELINDA J. HOLT, BIENVENIDO R.
JONGCO, ARTEMIO R. JONGCO, JR. and JOEL JONGCO, Hence, this petition.
Respondent: ISMAEL VELOSO III
ISSUE
DOCTRINE W/N the 1st cause of action must be dismiss
When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of action, such
fact can be determined only from the facts alleged in the complaint and from no other, RULING & RATIO
and the court cannot consider other matters aliunde
1. NO
FACTS - According to Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is the
- Manaloto, et al. alleged that they are the lessors of a residential house act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
located at Quezon City which was leased to Veloso for a monthly rental of - When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of
17k. action, such fact can be determined only from the facts alleged in the
- Despite repeated demands, Veloso failed to pay the monthly rentals. Thus, complaint and from no other, and the court cannot consider other matters
Manaloto et al. filed an unlawful detainer case against Veloso. aliunde
- Veloso denied the nonpayment of rentals and alleged that he made an - A cause of action (for damages) exists if the following elements are present:
advance payment of P825,000.00 when he paid for the repairs done on the o (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
leased property. whatever law it arises or is created
- Metropolitan Trial Court decided in favor of Manaloto and ordered Veloso to o (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect
vacate the premises and pay the rentals. Veloso appealed to RTC br.88. or not to violate such right and
- While the appeal is still pending, Veloso filed a complaint for Breach of o (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative
Contract and Damages with the RTC br. 227 of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
- The said complaint alleged two cause of action: obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
o 1st Cause of action was for damages, because he supposedly maintain an action for recovery of damages..
suffered embarrassment and humiliation when Manaloto distributed - First, Veloso filed the complaint to protect his good character, name, and
copies of MeTC decision to the Homeowners reputation. Every man has a right to build, keep, and be favored with a good
o 2nd Cause of action was for Breach of Contract, since Manaloto name.
failed to repair and preserve the property. - Second, Manaloto are obliged to respect respondents good name even
- Manaloto filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the dismissal of Velosos though they are opposing parties in the unlawful detainer case
complaint. He alleged that Veloso had no cause of action against them - Third, distribution by Manaloto to Horseshoe Village homeowners of copies
because the MeTC decision was a matter of public record and its disclosure of the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case, which still on appeal
to the public violated no law or any legal right of the respondent. before the RTCBranch 88, had no apparent lawful purpose except to
humiliate respondent or assault his character.
RTC br. 227: dismissed Velosos Complaint for violating the rule against splitting of
cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to disclose the pendency of a related DISPOSITION
case. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Decision dated January 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 82610 is
CA: affirmed with modification AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of moral and exemplary damages
- Affirmed the dismissal of 2nd Cause of action (Breach of Contract) made by the Court of Appeals in favor of respondent Ismael Veloso III is DELETED.
- Reversed the dismissal of 1st Cause of Action. The complaint of respondent Ismael Veloso III in Civil Case No. Q0248341 is hereby
REINSTATED before Branch 227 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City only in so
Page 1 of 2
far as the first cause of action is concerned. The said court is DIRECTED to hear and
dispose of the case with dispatch.
Page 2 of 2

Manaloto v. Veloso III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manaloto v. Veloso III

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manaloto v. Veloso III

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manaloto v.

You might also like