Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23510. May 30, 1966.]

LUCIDO GARCON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS, Defendant-Appellee.

Arsenio R. Reyes & Associates, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Padilla Law Office, for Defendant-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION. — The insufficiency of the cause of action must appear in the face of the complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground, for in the determination of whether or not a complaint states a cause of action only the facts alleged therein and no other matter may be considered. The court may not inquire into the truth of the allegations, and find them to be false before a hearing is had on the me its of the case. It is improper to inject in the allegations of the complaint facts not alleged or proved, and use these as basis for the said motion to dismiss.

2. ID.; ID.; WHEN COMPLAINT STATES VALID CAUSE OF ACTION; CASES AT BAR. — Considering exclusively the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to make his case fall within the coverage of the Termination Pay Law (Rep. Act No. 1052, as amended) and the Eight Hour Labor Law (Com. Act No. 444, as amended). Defendant has been alleged to be engaged in dormitory business for profit or gain, and, as such, it can be classified as one engaged in commercial enterprise or in industry or occupation under both law. Defendant has also been alleged to have committed violations of these laws. Both laws provide for remedies of said violations which are now being availed of by plaintiff in his complaint. This being the case, plaintiff’s complaint has stated a valid cause of action against defendant.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


This is a pauper’s appeal interposed against an order sustaining defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, on the ground that it states no valid cause of action, issued in Civil Case No. 475- R of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VII (Pasay City), as well as against a subsequent order, denying plaintiff’s motion to reconsider said order of dismissal. Originally brought to the Court of Appeals, and docketed as its G. R. No. 33124, the latter court forwarded the appeal to this Supreme Court for the reason that the only question involved is purely legal.

The records disclose that: On 3 February 1963, plaintiff Lucido Garcon commenced a suit against defendant Redemptorist Fathers, a religious corporation, in the Court of First Instance. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that sometime in April, 1958 plaintiff was employed as chief cook, without any fixed duration and at a monthly compensation of P200.00, by defendant which has been engaged in maintaining and running for profit a dormitory with more or less 43 students-boarders; that he had been actually paid only P186.00 as his monthly salary, leaving a balance of P14.00 as his unpaid salary every month; that since his employment he had been faithfully and religiously performing his duties as such cook for 10 hours daily, including Sundays and other legal holidays, without having been paid any overtime compensation; that on 14 January 1963 he was summarily dismissed by defendant without just cause and without being given any notice and termination pay; that on account of this illegal dismissal and unjustified refusal of defendant to pay his demands for unpaid salaries, overtime pay and termination, he suffered moral damages and was compelled to engage the services of counsel for a fee; and that the award of exemplary damages is also warranted. Whereupon, plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant the following: (a) unpaid salaries — P798.00; (b) overtime pay for services rendered on ordinary days, Sundays and other legal holidays — P2,288.00; (c) termination pay — P500.00; (d) moral damages — P5,000.00; (e) exemplary damages — P5,000.00; and (f) attorney’s fee — P500.00; plus cost of the suit.

On 17 April 1963, defendant presented a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it states no valid cause of action. In support thereof, defendant denied that it maintains a dormitory for profit or gain, but rather that, as a religious order, it established a minor seminary where students are admitted upon payment of nominal fees or without fees at all; hence, it is not a commercial, industrial or agricultural establishment which falls within the purview of the Termination Pay Law (Republic Act No. 1052, as amended), nor is it engaged in "industry or occupation," as these terms are understood under the Eight Hour Labor Law (Commonwealth Act No. 444, as amended). Not falling within the coverage of both laws, defendant maintained that plaintiff has not established a right or cause of action against it. Defendant also maintained that plaintiff, as such cook, is a domestic and not entitled to overtime pay under the latter law (Com. Act No. 444, as amended).

On 24 April 1963, plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion; to which opposition defendant submitted a rejoinder.

On 1 June 1963, the trial court sustained defendant’s motion and ordered the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, which is quoted below, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Acting upon defendant’s motion to dismiss dated April 16, 1963 as well as the opposition thereto and considering that the only issue in the instant case is whether or not defendant corporation is an employer within the purview of Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 444 and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1052; and it being the sense of this Court that the defendant is not within the coverage of said laws since it is neither a commercial, industrial or agricultural establishment or enterprise nor is it engaged in any industry or occupation, the said motion should be granted (Y.M.C.A. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 33 Phil. 227; Boy Scouts of the Phil. v. Araos, G.R. No. L- 10091, January 29, 1958; San Beda College v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-7649, Oct, 29, 1955).

"WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Plaintiff moved to reconsider the above order, but without success; hence the present appeal.

It was unquestionably erroneous for the trial court to have decided the motion to dismiss on the basis of the allegations made therein being true, because it is plain on the face of the pleadings that the motion to dismiss improperly contradicted the factual allegations of the complaint. The plaintiff had averred that defendant maintained and operated for profit a dormitory for students-boarders: while the motion to dismiss denied that fact and alleged that as a religious order it maintained a minor seminary with students paying nominal fees or no fees at all. Under the Rules of Court, these facts, pleaded by appellee, constitute a matter of defense to be set up in an answer, and not in a motion to dismiss.

It is already well-settled by now that, in a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations of fact made in the complaint to constitute a cause of action, and not on whether these allegations of fact are true, 1 for said motion must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint 2; that the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of said complaint. 3 Stated otherwise, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear in the face of the complaint 4 in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground, for in the determination of whether or not a complaint states a cause of action only the facts alleged therein and no other matter may be considered, 5 and the court may not inquire into the truth of the allegations, and find them to be false before a hearing is had on the merits of the case; 6 and it is improper to inject in the allegations of the complaint facts not alleged or proved and use these as basis for said motion. 7

Considering exclusively the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to make his case fall within the coverage of the Termination Pay Law (Rep. Act No. 1052, as amended) and the Eight Hour Labor Law (Com. Act No. 444, as amended). Defendant has been alleged to be engaged in dormitory business for profit or gain, and, as such, it can be classified as one engaged in commercial enterprise or in industry or occupation under both laws. Defendant has also been alleged to have committed violations of these laws. Both laws provide for remedies of said violations which are now being availed of by plaintiff in his complaint. This being the case, it is clear that plaintiff’s complaint has stated a valid cause of action against defendant.

Defendant-appellee also urges, in the brief, that as a cook plaintiff is only a domestic, and hence not entitled to overtime pay under the Eight Hour labor law. Granting, hypothetically, the correctness of this view, the complaint would still state a cause of action under the Civil Code, since, as a domestic engaged in household service, plaintiff would be entitled to four days’ vacation with pay each month (Art. 1695) and not to be dismissed without advance notice (Art. 1698, par. 3); and the complaint avers that plaintiff-appellant rendered services for ten hours daily, including Sundays and holidays, and that he was summarily dismissed without just cause and without notice.

Wherefore, the appealed order dismissing the complaint is hereby set aside. Let the case be remanded to the court of origin, with directions to overrule the motion to dismiss, and thereafter proceed in conformity with law and the Rules of Court.

So ordered. Costs against Defendant-Appellee.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Piñero v. Enriquez, 84 Phil. 774.

2. Piñero v. Enriquez, supra; Community Investment & Finance Corp. v. Garcia, 88 Phil. 215; Palma v. Graciano, 99 Phil. 72; Carreon v. Province of Pampanga, 99 Phil, 808; Pangan v. Evening News Publishing Co., Inc., L-13308, Dec. 29, 1960; Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works & Communications, L-10405, Dec. 29, 1960; Republic v. Ramos, L-15484, Jan. 31, 1963; Alquique v. De Leon, L-15059, Mar. 30, 1963; PNB v. Hipolito, L-16463, Jan 30, 1965.

3. Paminsan v. Costales, 28 Phil. 943; Blay v. Batangas Trans. Co., 80 Phil. 817; De Jesus v. Belarmino, 95 Phil. 365; Dimayuga v. Dimayuga, 96 Phil. 859; Wise & Co, v. City of Manila, L-9156, April 29, 1957, 54 Off. Gaz., 4245.

4. Convets, Inc. v. NDC, L-10232, February 29, 1958; 54 Off. Gaz., 5322.

5. Ruperto v. Fernando, 83 Phil. 943; Francisco v. Robles, 94 Phil. 1095 (unpub.); De Jesus v. Belarmino, supra; Dimayuga v. Dimayuga, supra; Zobel v. Abreau, 98 Phil. 343; Convets, Inc. v. NDC, supra; Reinares v. Arrastia, L-17083, July 21, 1962; Uy Chao v. de la Rama Steamship Co., L-14495, Sept. 29, 1962; Mindanao Realty Corp. v. Kintanar, L-17152, Nov. 30, 1962; Lim v. delos Santos, L- 18137, Aug. 31, 1963; Dalandan v. Julio, L-19101, Feb. 29, 1964.

6. Lim v. de los Santos, supra.

7. Zobel v. Abreau, supra.




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






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.