B. Cause of Action (Rule 2)

C. Cause of Action (Rule 2)

• Splitting
• Joinder and Misjoinder

> Section 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. – Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (n) Section 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. (n) Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action. – A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. (3a) Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. – If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. (4a) Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. – A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties; (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules; (c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (5a) Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. – Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)

Basis of Ordinary Civil Actions

Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. (Rule 2, Sec. 1)

Effect of Failure to Observe Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss.

If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112708-09, 1996).

The law’s intention was to grant jurisdiction over the enforcement of settlement/arbitration to the city or municipal courts regardless of the amount. (Sebastian v. Lagmay, G.R. No. 164594, 2015)

MEANING OF CAUSE OF ACTION

A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal rights of another.

Elements of a cause of action (ROB):

• Legal Right of the plaintiff;
• Correlative Obligation of the defendant to respect plaintiff’s right;
• Act or omission (i.e. Breach) of the defendant in violation of plaintiff’s legal right.

Recall: The obligations referred to above are enumerated in Civil Code, Art. 1157:

• Law
• Contract
• Quasi-contract
• Delict
• Quasi-delict

A single act or omission can be violative of various rights at the time, but where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but one single cause of action regardless of the number of rights violated. (Joseph v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-41423, 1989)

A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. (Rule 2, Sec. 3)

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. Even a third party outside the contract can have a cause of action against either or both contracting parties. (Camarines Sur IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Aquino, G.R. No. 167691, 2008)

The phrase “financial and business difficulties” in the complaint is a vague notion, ambiguous in concept. With no “particular injury” alleged in the complaint, there is no delict or wrongful act or omission attributable to the petitioner that would violate the primary rights of the respondent, there is failure to state a cause of action. (Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, G.R. No. 141309, 2008)

Right of Action

A remedial right or right to relief granted by law to a party to institute an action against a person who has committed a delict or wrong against him/her; it is the right of a person to bring and prosecute an action to obtain a judgment, the elements of which are as follows:

• There must be a cause of action;
• Compliance with all the conditions precedents; and
• Action must be instituted by the proper party.

Performance or fulfillment of all conditions precedent upon which a right of action depends must be sufficiently alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show that a party has a right of action is upon the person initiating the suit. (Philippine American General Insurance Co., v. Sweet Lines, G.R. No. 87434, 1992)

While the “cause of action” is the reason for the action (e.g. breach of contract), the “right of action” is the remedy or means afforded or the consequent relief (e.g., filing a civil action for recovery of damages on the ground of breach of contract).

While a cause of action depends on substantive law, the right of action is a matter of procedure (a remedial right) and depends on the pleadings filed by the parties.

Lastly, a cause of action is not affected by affirmative defenses (fraud, prescription, estoppel etc.). On the other hand, a right of action may be lost or waived (e.g. through prescription if a complaint is not filed within the prescriptive period.)

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

The curing effect under Section 5 is applicable only if a cause of action in fact exists at the time the complaint is filed, but the complaint is defective for failure to allege the essential facts.

For example, if a complaint failed to allege the fulfillment of a condition precedent upon which the cause of action depends, evidence showing that such condition had already been fulfilled when the complaint was filed may be presented during the trial, and the complaint may accordingly be amended thereafter.

It thus follows that a complaint whose cause of action has not yet accrued cannot be cured or remedied by an amended or supplemental pleading alleging the existence or accrual of a cause of action while the case is pending. Such an action is prematurely brought and is, therefore, a groundless suit, which should be dismissed by the court upon proper motion seasonably filed by the defendant.

The underlying reason for this rule is that a person should not be summoned before the public tribunals to answer for complaints which are immature. (Swagman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161135, 2005)

(Asia Brewery, Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 190432, April 25, 2017)

One suit for a single cause of action

A party may not institute more than 1 suit for a single cause of action (Rule 2, Sec. 3)

The true rule which determines whether a party has only a single and entire cause of action or has a severable demand for which he may maintain separate suits, is whether the entire amount arises from one and the same act or contract or the several parts arise from distinct and different acts or contracts. (BPI Family v. Vda. De Coscolluela, G.R. No. 167724, 2006)

When the facts clearly show that the filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on the violation of stipulations in the lease contract, while the filing of the second case was based on the expiration of the lease contract, the dismissal of the civil action would not prosper.

To ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, several tests exist:

• Whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the first and second causes of action (same evidence test)
• Whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate the complaint in the other.
• Whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. (Umale v. Canoga, G. R. No. 167246, 2011)

Singleness of Cause of Action in Contracts

General Rule: A contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be violated only once even if it contains several stipulations. (Quiogue v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-13159, 1962)

Exception: A contract to do several things at several times is divisible in its nature. This kind of obligation authorizes successive actions and a judgment recovered for a single breach does not bar a suit for a subsequent breach. (Blossoms & Co. v. Manila Gas Corporation, G.R. No. L-32958, 1930)

SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND ITS EFFECTS

Splitting a single cause of action is the act of instituting two or more suits for the same cause of action.

The pleader divides a single cause of action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate action. (Quadra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147593, 2006)

It is to be noted that splitting a cause of action is NOT allowed by the Rules of Court and such prohibition applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and cross-claims. (Mariscal v. CA, G.R. No. 123926, 1999)

JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION

Joinder of Causes of Action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may have against another in one pleading alone. It is not compulsory, but merely permissive.

A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:

• The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties
• The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
• Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
• Where the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction. (Rule 2, Sec. 5)

It is the process of uniting two or more demands or rights of action in one action.

When there are two or more defendants, or one or more plaintiffs, the causes of action against the defendants can only be joined if there is compliance with the rules on joinder of parties. (Flores v. Mallare-Philipps, G.R. No. L-66620, 1986)

However, joinder does NOT include special civil actions or those actions governed by special rules, i.e., ejectment, REM foreclosure and partition.

Misjoinder of causes of action

Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (Rule 2, Sec. 6)

When after severance the case falls outside the jurisdiction of the court, the case may be dismissed motu propio or on motion.

Note that unlike splitting of cause of action, a misjoinder is NOT a ground for the dismissal of an action.

If no one objects to the misjoinder, it would be tried and decided together with the other causes of action. (see Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182432, 2012)

Effect of Failure to Observe Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss.

If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112708-09, 1996).

The law’s intention was to grant jurisdiction over the enforcement of settlement/arbitration to the city or municipal courts regardless of the amount. (Sebastian v. Lagmay, G.R. No. 164594, 2015)