Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > March 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 12180 March 14, 1917 - MARIANO CAÑETE v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

036 Phil 428:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 12180. March 14, 1917. ]

MARIANO CAÑETE, Petitioner, v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, judge of first instance of Cebu, and BASILIO SERNA, Respondents.

McVean & Vickers of petitioner.

Nicolas Rafols for respondent Serna.

SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING; COMPLAINT; EXHIBITS DO NOT TAKE PLACE OF ALLEGATIONS. — A complaint which contains no allegations except those found in a number of exhibits attached to the complaint is not a brief statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language as required by section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. ID.; ID. — Exhibits attached to a complaint do not take the place of allegations; the pleader still lies under the duty of alleging in the complaint itself all of the facts necessary to establish his cause of action the same as if the exhibits were not attached.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


This is a proceeding begun in this court to obtain a writ of certiorari directed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu requiring it to send to this court the proceedings in an election contest pending in that court between Mariano Cañete and Basilio Serna, for revision by this court to the end that certain proceedings had therein may be revised and, in proper case, annulled. A demurrer was filed to the petition upon the ground that the facts set forth in the petition were not sufficient to sustain the proceeding.

The petition, or complaint as it is many times called, is fatally defective in form at least. It is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Comes now Mariano Cañete by the undersigned attorneys and respectfully show to the court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the petitioner is of legal age, a resident of the municipality of Dumanjug, Province of Cebu, Philippine Islands.

"2. That the respondent Adolph Wislizenus is the judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu.

"3. That the respondent Basilio Serna is of legal age, and a resident of the municipality of Dumanjug, Province of Cebu, Philippine Islands.

"4. That the petitioner above named was the protestant in an election contest No. 2344, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Philippine Islands, entitled Mariano Cañete v. Basilio Serna, a copy of which protest is filed herewith and made a part hereof marked Exhibit A.

"5. That said petitioner through his attorneys did cause notice to be served on the respondent Basilio Serna, Miguel Jakosalem, Leon Noel, Arsenio Climaco, Roman Zozobrado, as shown by Exhibits B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 filed herewith and made a part hereof.

"6. That no notice was served on Catalino Corona as appears by the affidavit of petitioner, a copy of which is filed herewith and made a part hereof marked Exhibit C.

"7. That on July 22, 1916, the respondent, Basilio Serna, through his attorneys P. E. del Rosario and Nicolas Rafols, filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion which is filed herewith marked Exhibit D.

"8. That on the same date (July 22, 1916) the petitioner through the undersigned attorneys filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion filed herewith marked Exhibit E.

"9. That on July 24, 1916, Basilio Serna, respondent, through his attorneys filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion filed herewith marked Exhibit F.

"10. That on July 25, 1916, the respondent Basilio Serna filed a second motion in said protest a copy of which is filed herewith and made a part hereof marked Exhibit G.

"11. That on July 27, 1916, Guillermo Rubia entered his appearance in said protest as appears by Exhibit H.

"12. That on the 1st day of August, 1916, the respondent, Adolph Wislizenus, exceeded his jurisdiction as judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu, without warrant in law, and, over the protest and objection of the petitioner herein, made and caused to be entered upon the records of said court in said special action No. 2344 a certain order, a true and correct copy of which is hereto attached marked Exhibit I and made a part hereof.

"13. That there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy or adequate remedy from the decision or order of the respondent Adolph Wislizenus, judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

"1. Wherefore the petitioner asks this honorable court for an order directing the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Province to send to the Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands the complete record of the special procedure No. 2344, entitled Mariano Cañete, protestant, v. Basilio Serna, protestee.

"2. For an order declaring null and void the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Province, in said special action No. 2344 of date August 1st, 1916.

"3. For an order directing the respondent Adolph Wislizenus to proceed with the hearing of aid protest as provided in such cases.

"4. For an injunction against the respondent, Basilio Serna, enjoining said respondent from assuming the duties of president of the municipality of Dumanjug pending the final hearing of this protest by the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Cebu, Philippine Islands."cralaw virtua1aw library

As will be seen at a glance the complaint consists almost wholly of a list of exhibits attached thereto and made a part thereof. It does not contain the facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action, but simply a list of exhibits to which the pleader refers to the facts upon which he relies.

Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint shall consist of "a brief statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language." This requirement has been ignored in the complaint before us. After reading the complaint itself one knows no more about plaintiff’s cause of action than he did before.

Exhibits attached to a complaint do not take the place of allegations. They are referred to and annexed for the purpose merely of supporting the allegations of fact made in the complaint. No matter how many exhibits maybe attached to a complaint and made a part thereof, the pleader still lies under the duty of alleging in the complaint itself all of the facts necessary to establish his cause of action precisely the same as if the exhibits were not attached. To illustrate what is meant let us take paragraph 7 of the petition. That paragraph states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on July 22, 1916, the respondent, Basilio Serna, through his attorneys P. Ed. del Rosario and Nicolas Rafols, filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion which is filed herewith marked Exhibit D."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is clear that one who reads that paragraph obtains absolutely no information as to what the nature of the motion referred to therein was. The criticism of that allegation is that it lacks a statement of the nature and substance of the motion. The act of attaching Exhibit D does not relieve the pleader from the obligation of alleging in paragraph 7, and as a part thereof, the nature and substance of the motion.

The same may be said as to paragraph 8 in which the pleader refers to another motion. No one who reads the allegation contained in that paragraph is wiser. All of the other paragraphs are subject to the same criticism. Paragraph 12 refers to "a certain order" without stating the nature of that order or the substance thereof and one who has read the allegation knows no more about the order referred to than he did before he read it.

A court is not obliged, in order to know what the plaintiff’s cause of action is, to search through a list of exhibits, more or less lengthy, and select what the court presumes the pleader intended to allege. The complaint itself must contain all of the facts necessary to establish plaintiff’s cause of action so that when the court reads it can see upon the face of the complaint itself whether or not a cause of action is stated. If the pleader desires to refer to any motion or order or other proceeding and to make it a part of his complaint he must set out in the complaint itself the nature of the proceeding and the substance thereof in such a way as to show its relationship to and its effect upon the cause of action.

The petition not stating facts sufficient to warrant the relief prayed for the demurrer is sustained; and unless the plaintiff files an amended pleading within ten days the proceedings will be finally dismissed with costs. So ordered.

Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11257 March 1, 1917 - MARTIN QUILOP v. MARIA U. COTTONG

    044 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. 11409 March 12, 1917 - RAMON ONGPIN v. VICENTA RIVERA

    044 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 11374 March 14, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN SANTIAGO

    041 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 10152 March 29, 1917 - FELIX ROBLES v. LIZARRAGA HERMANOS

    041 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 9802 March 31, 1917 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA, AUSTRALIA & CHINA

    041 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. 10551 March 3, 1917 - IGNACIO ARROYO v. ALFRED BERWIN

    036 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 11067 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE SOTTO

    036 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11602 March 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER E. OLSEN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 12581 March 13, 1917 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ

    036 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 11179 March 14, 1917 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. AGUSTIN BELZUNCE

    036 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 11471 March 14, 1917 - CO PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 11550 March 14, 1917 - LUPO MERCADO v. ANANIAS VICENCIO

    036 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 11994 March 14, 1917 - STAPLES-HOWE PRINTING COMPANY v. MANILA BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    036 Phil 417

  • G.R. No. 12117 March 14, 1917 - LIM YIONG v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 12180 March 14, 1917 - MARIANO CAÑETE v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 12379 March 14, 1917 - LAO HU NIU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 11476 March 15, 1917 - MAGDALENO AGATEP v. JUAN TAGUINOD

    036 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. 11686 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO CARDONA

    036 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 11696 March 15, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA GUILLERMA PALISOC, ET AL.

    036 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. 10559 March 16, 1917 - AGUSTIN ASENCIO v. ROMAN BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    036 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 11759 March 16, 1917 - CAYETANO LIM v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 11681 March 17, 1917 - JOSE VILLAREAL v. RAFAEL CORPUS

    036 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 12354 March 17, 1917 - GREGORIO REMATA v. JUAN JAVIER

    036 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 12508 March 17, 1917 - JOSE DEOGRACIAS v. JOSE C. ABREU, ET AL.

    036 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 11441 March 19, 1917 - MARIA ELOISA ROCHA v. EMILIA P. TUASON

    036 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 10598 March 20, 1917 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ANASTACIO ALANO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 11198 March 20, 1917 - THOS B. AITKEN v. JULIAN LA O

    036 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 11548 March 24, 1917 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    036 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 11730 March 24, 1917 - FELIX NATE v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    036 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 12391 March 26, 1917 - UNITES STATES v. TEOPISTA VERAY

    036 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 12454 March 26, 1917 - ANGEL PALMA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 12706 March 26, 1917 - RUPERTO VENTURANZA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 27, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF CARDONA v. MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11767 March 27, 1917 - LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI v. MANUELA SARTE

    036 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. 12286 March 27, 1917 - C. E. SALMON, ET AL. v. CHINO TAN CUECO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 12551 March 27, 1917 - BENITO POBLETE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 12623 March 27, 1917 - CHAN LIN, ET AL. v. M. VIVENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. 11189 March 29, 1917 - EUSEBIO LOPEZ v. FRANCISCO ABELARDE

    036 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 11474 March 29, 1917 - PASIG STEAMER AND LIGHTER COMPANY v. VICENTE MADRIGAL

    036 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 11030 March 30, 1917 - DOMINGO ENRILE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 11629 March 30, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    036 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 12122 March 30, 1917 - FRANCISCO VILLAESTAR v. ADOLPH WISLIZENUS

    036 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 12590 March 30, 1917 - TAN PUY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    036 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 10986 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE DE COMMERCE v. HAMBURG AMERIKA

    036 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 11169 March 31, 1917 - COMPAGNIE FRANCO-INDOCHINOISE v. DEUTSCH AUSTRALISCHE DAMPSCHIFFS GESELLSCHAFT

    036 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 11386 March 31, 1917 - EMILIO NATIVIDAD v. BASILIA GABINO

    036 Phil 663

  • G.R. Nos. 11447, 11448 & 11449 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 668

  • G.R. Nos. 11457 & 11458 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO LAXA

    036 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 11841 March 31, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO LIM

    036 Phil 682