DAVID’S
MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE (MOELCI) V. DAVID
GR NO. 129928, AUGUST 25, 2005
Cruz, Katherine Ann Alonzo
DAVID’S
Virgilio S. David, a supplier of electrical hardware,
filed a case for specific performance and
damages against Misamis Occidental II Electric
Cooperative, Inc (MOELCI II), a rural electric
MOELCI II V. cooperative.
DAVID
David alleged that he and MOELCI entered into a
FACTS : contract for the sale of a power transformer and
line accessories, but MOELCI failed to pay despite
demands.
MOELCI filed an answer pleading affirmative
defenses, including lack of cause of action and
improper venue.
MOELCI II V. MOELCI filed a motion for preliminary hearing on
DAVID its affirmative defenses and deferment of pre trial
FACTS : conference, arguing that the document attached
to david’s complaint was only a quotation letter
and not a contract.
David opposed, asserting that the determination
on the sufficiency of a cause of action should
solely rely on the complaint’s allegations, which
should not include examination of annexes like
the quotation letter.
MOELCI II V. The trial court denied MOELCI’s motion and its
DAVID subsequent motion for reconsideration.
FACTS : MOELCI filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, which was dismissed.
MOELCI then filed a petition for review with the
Supreme Court.
MOELCI asserted that the Court of Appeals erred
PETITIONER’S in ruling that the resolution of its motion to
ARGUMENTS
dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action
necessitated hearings by the trial court.
MOELCI claimed that the Court of Appeals
exhorted the trial court to defer the resolution of
MOELCI II V. its motion to dismiss until after the hearing of the
DAVID case on the merits contrary to the Rules of Court
FACTS : and jurisprudence.
MOELCI reiterated that the document attached as
Annex “A” of the Amended Complaint was clearly
a quotation letter and not a perfected contract of
sale, leaving no room for interpretation.
RESPONDENT’S
ARGUMENTS David contended that a sufficient cause of action
existed.
David argued that he and MOELCI differed in the
interpretation of the document attached as
MOELCI II V. Annex “A” of the Amended Complaint,
DAVID necessitating hearings thereon.
FACTS : David claimed that the trial court did not defer
DAVID’S the resolution of MOELCI motion to dismiss but
squarely denied it.
I. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in
dismissing the petition for certiorari and
holding that the trial court did not commit
grave abuse of discretion in denying
MOELCI II V. DAVID petitioner’s motion?
ISSUES
&RULINGS
No. the Supreme court found no error in the ruling
of the Court of Appeals. A preliminary hearing on
affirmative defenses, including the ground of
failure to state a cause of action, is discretionary
upon the trial court. Absent any showing that the
trial court had acted without jurisdiction or in
excess thereof or with such grave abuse of
MOELCI II V. DAVID
discretion as would amount to lack of jurisdiction,
ISSUES the trial court’s order granting or dispensing with
&RULINGS the need of preliminary hearing may not be
corrected by certiorari. Moreover, consistent with
jurisprudence, a preliminary hearing on the ground
that the complaint allegedly stated no cause of
action is unnecessary and erroneous, as the
sufficiency of the cause of action must appear on
the face of the complaint itself.
II.Whether the allegations in David’s
complaint constitute a cause of action?
MOELCI II V. DAVID
ISSUES
&RULINGS
YES. The Supreme Court held that the allegations
in David’s Amended complaint sufficiently lay out
a cause of action. Even extending the scrunity to
Annex “A”, which is deemed part of the Amended
Complaint, will not result in a change in the
conclusion. The presence of signatures of
MOELCI II V. DAVID MOELCI’s representative’s on Annex “A” lends
ISSUES credibility to David’s contention that there was, or
might have been, a meeting of minds on the terms
&RULINGS embodied therein. The ambiguity of the import
and nature of Annex “A” necessitates its proper
interpretation, which required the introduction of
evidence, fortifying the propriety of the trial
court’s denial of MOELCI’s Motion.
MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
V. DAVID
To determine the existence of a Cause of Action, only the statements in the complaint,
may be properly considered. It is an error for the court to take cognizance of external facts
or hold preliminary hearings to determine their existence. If the allegations in a complaint
furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not be
dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendant.
The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is
whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in
accordance with the prayer of said complaint.
