Rheem Philippines vs.

Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441

Facts

Contempt proceedings. The following from the motion to reconsider the decision herein, filed
by counsel for petitioners----

It may also be mentioned in passing that this Honorable Court contravened Rule 2, Section 5 of
the Rules of Court when it applied the so-called rule against splitting of jurisdiction in its Decision in the
present case. As applied by this Honorable Court, the rule means that when an employee files with the
Court of industrial Relations numerous claims relative to his employment but only one [of] which is
cognizable by said court under the law, while the others pertain to other tribunals that court has
authority to entertain all the claims to avoid multiplicity of suits . . . .

drew from the Court an order directing counsel to show cuase why they should not be dealt with for
contempt of court.

In respondents attorneys’ verified return, they offered “their most sincere apologies for the
language used” and stated that “it was not and it has never been their intention to be disrespectful.”
They manifested that the language “was the result of overenthusiasm on the part of Atty. Jose S.
Armonio, who thought best to focus the attention of this Honorable Court to the issue in the case, as
not in any way meant to slight or offend this Honorable Court. They also said that the unfortunate
Motion for Reconsideration was prepared and filed by Atty. Armonio who had been personally handling
the case since its inception at the Court of Industrial Relations, and who had, perhaps, become too
emotionally involved in the case.”

Issue

Whether or not Atty. Armonio’s statements violated the duty of respect to courts.

Ruling

By now, a lawyer’s duties to the Court have become common place. Really, there could be any
valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. Section 20 (b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in
categorical terms, spells out one such duty. “To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
justice and judicial officers.” As explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that “it is the
duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the
temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.” That
same canon, as a corollary, makes it peculiarly incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts against
“unjust criticism and clamor.” The attorney’s oath solemnly binds him to a conduct that should be “with
all good fidelity… to the courts.” Worth remembering is that the duty of an attorney to the courts “can
only be maintained by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the judicial office which he is
bound to uphold.”

The language here in question, respondents aver, “was the result of overenthusiasm.” However,
it must be circumscribed within the bounds of propriety and with due regard for the proper place of
courts in system of government. We are not mindful of counsel’s statement that the language used “was
not in any way meant to slight or offend” this Court. Want of intention, we fell constrained to say, is no
excuse for the language employed. For, counsel cannot escape responsibility “by claiming that his words
did not mean any reader must have understood them as meaning.” In the end, we admonish Atty. Jose
S. Antonio, with the warning that repetition of this incident will be dealt with accordingly.

Philippine Daily inquirer vs. Almeda, 550 SCRA 199

Facts

The Philippine Daily Inquirer, in its August 1, 2000 issue, published an article with the heading
“After Bong, who’s next?” The article narrates the death of Expedito “Bong” Cadez, a photo
correspondent of the PDI in Cagayan. In said article, the family of the deceased correspondent laments
the death of their loved one due to the alleged erroneous diagnosis of Dr. Luz Babaran. Later, in its
September 29, 2000 issue, the PDI published another article with the heading “DOH orders probe of
fotog’s death.” In said article, it was reported that the regional Department of Health (DOH) in
Tuguegarao City has started investigating the death of Expedito Caldez following and order from the
DOH’s Bureau of Licensing and Regulation. Based on the two PDI column articles, Dr. Babaran filed a
complaint for Damages. The articles portrayed her as incompetent and whose alleged diagnosis caused
the death of Expedito Caldez, and, in causing the articles to be published, petitioners acted in bad faith.

Petitioners filed their Answer with counterclaims. Petitioners raised the following defenses: that
the complaint states no cause of action against them; that the complaints fails and omits to state the
factual premises to support a conclusion that there was malice on the part of the petitioners; that the
case for actionable libel with claims for damages has not been adequately stated in the complaint; and,
that the complaint fails to establish the basis of petitioners’ liability.

RTC opined that private respondent’s allegations in her complaint, as well as her documentary
evidence, show that there is sufficient cause of action. It added that the documentary evidence discloses
facts which are sufficient to enable the court to go beyond the disclosures in the complaint. Considering
that the facts alleged in the complaint which make out the principal cause of action and relief are
sufficient, the case should not be dismissed. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was
denied in the order.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the CA. The CA issued a
resolution, dismissing the petition for being insufficient in form and substance and for presenting no
justiciable issue needing serious consideration by the court.
Issues

Whether or not a complaint which fails to validly and sufficiently state a cause of action for libel
because:

a. The participation of each defendant (petitioner) in the writing, editing, printing, and publication
of the news articles in question is not specifically set out in the complaint.
b. The material allegations of the complaint are purely legal conclusions and opinions of private
respondent, and not statements of ultimate facts; and
c. The complaint is violative of petitioners’ constitutional rights to free press and to free speech.

Ruling

As defined in Section 2, Rules of Court, a cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates the right of another. In relation to a complaint, it is the formal statement of the operative facts
that give rise to a remedial right. The question of whether the complaint states a cause of action is
determined by the averments regarding the acts committed by the defendant. Thus, it must contain a
concise statement of the ultimate and essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. As such,
the failure to make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint warrants its dismissal. Its
essential elements are as follows:

1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created.
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.

On the three, the most important is the last element. In determining whether an initiatory pleading
states a cause of action, “the test is as follows: admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the court
render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer?” To be taken into account are only the material
allegations in the complaint, extraneous facts and circumstances or other means aliunde are not
considered. The court may however consider, in addition to the complaint, the appended annexes or
documents, other pleadings of the plaintiff, or admissions in the records.

This Court finds that petitioners raised the threshold question of whether the complaint sufficiently
alleges a cause of action. Hence, the trial court should’ve granted petitioners’ motion for a preliminary
hearing on the affirmative defenses raised in the answer based on failure to state a cause of action.
Wherefore, petition is granted.