Section 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court requires that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action, otherwise, the civil action is susceptible to dismissal. The 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the plaintiff’s failure to state a cause of action may be raised as an affirmative defense in the Answer[1]. The test to determine whether a petition or complaint states a cause of action against the defendants is this: admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, may a judge validly grant the relief demanded in the complaint?
In so determining, only the statements in the complaint may properly be considered. If the allegation in a complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint may be maintained, the same should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be assessed by the defendants. Thus, in determining the existence of a cause of action, only the allegations in the complaint may properly be considered. For the court to do otherwise would be a procedural error and a dental of the plaintiff’s right to due process.”
In a recent case[2], the Supreme Court revisited its jurisprudential pronouncements on failure to state a cause of action. As expounded therein, the misapplication of procedural concepts in this case may, in part, stem from the Court’s own pronouncements in Aquino and other cases. Aside from explaining the test for determining whether a complaint states a cause of action, the Court in Aquino also listed the exceptions to the general rule – that allegations are hypothetically admitted as true and that the inquiry is confined to the face of the complaint or petition, to wit:
“The Court does not discount, however, that there are exceptions to the general rule that allegations are hypothetically admitted as true and inquiry is confined to the face of the complaint. First, there is no hypothetical admission if (a) the veracity of allegations of their falsity is subject to judicial notice; (b) allegations that are legally impossible; (c) facts inadmissible in evidence; and (d) facts which appear, by record or document included in the pleadings, to be unfounded. Second, inquiry is not confined to the complaint if culled (a) from annexes and other pleadings submitted by the parties, (b) from documentary evidence admitted by stipulation which disclose facts sufficient to defeat the claim; or (c) from evidence admitted in the course of hearings related to the case. (Emphasis supplied)
Following Aquino, the trial court is not expected to hypothetically admit all the claims made in the complaint or the petition. Exceptions to the general rule arise when claims are legally impossible, inadmissible, or unfounded based on the pleadings and their attachments.” In determining whether a claim is legally impossible, inadmissible, or unfounded, the trial court may undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the initiatory pleading and its attachments. The court is supposedly not confined to the complaint or petition and its annexes; it may also consider other submissions and admissions presented during the hearings on the case.[3]
To reconcile, the Court now settles, once and for all, that a complaint or petition may only be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action after an examination of the complaint or information itself, together with its annexes strictly excluding the pleadings or submissions of other parties. In so ruling, the Court returns to the established test: assuming the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint, may the judge validly grant the relief sought? This test does not call for input from the other parties or extraneous evidence. To allow such would effectively permit the trial court to determine the very existence of a cause of action, rather than limit itself to the narrower question of whether the petitioner or plaintiff has failed to state one.[4]
In resolving whether a party failed to state a cause of action, courts must be careful not to conflate this inquiry with a determination of whether the party actually has a cause of action. The former is a procedural question confined to the pleading, while the latter is a substantive issue that necessarily entails the reception and evaluation of evidence. When a court admits and relies on matters outside the pleading, it effectively shifts from assessing the sufficiency of the allegations to ruling on the merits of the claim itself.
Fair play requires that the sufficiency of an initiatory pleading be determined solely from the plaintiff’s own allegations and statements in their complaint or petition. The determination should not hinge on the submissions of other parties, as this would unjustly bind one party to matters clearly beyond their control. In the end, the truth of conflicting allegations is best resolved through trial.
[1] Section 12(4), Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
[2] G.R. No. 262480
[3] Idem
[4] Idem