ANTONIO LUISTRO vs CA AND FIRST GAS

POWER CORPORATION In this case, complaint falls short of the

GR No. 158819 | April 6, 2009
FIRST DIVISION, Carpio, J.
Digest by: Shekinah Mae Fortuna
FACTS
First Gas entered into a Contract of Easement of
Right-of-Way (Contract) with Luistro, an owner of a
parcel of land in Batangas, by virtue of its Substation
Interconnection Agreement (SIA) with Meralco and
NPC which required First Gas to finance, construct,
commission, and energize a 230-kilovolt electric power
transmission line, approximately 25 km in Batangas.
requirement that fraud must be stated with
particularity.
Complaint merely states that “…consolidator-facilitator
of the Defendants FGPC and Balfour by means of
fraud and machinations of words were able to
convince the plaintiff to enter into ‘CONTRACT OF
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY’…”
Hence, there is clearly no basis for the allegation that
Luistro only signed the Contract because of fraud
perpetrated by First Gas.

Under the contract, First Gas was granted perpetual

easement over a 100-sq. m. portion of his property for
the erection of the transmission line tower and a 25-
year easement over 2,453.60 sq. m. portion of the
property for the right to pass overhead line cables in
consideration of P 88,608.

Luistro filed a complaint for Rescission/Amendment

And Or Modification of Contract Of Easement With
Damages against First Gas and First Balfour Beatty
Realty, Inc., alleging that he entered into the Contract
under misrepresentation, promises, false and
fraudulent assurances, and tricks of First Gas. He
said that while his house was supposed to be 20 to 25
meters away from the transmission wire/line, it turned
out after the installation that his house was only 7.23
meters directly underneath the transmission wire/line.
He further alleged that alleged that the powerful 230
kilovolts passing the transmission wire/line
continuously endanger the lives, limbs, and properties
of petitioner and his family.

First Gas filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied

by the RTC. It therefore filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA, in which it set aside the ruling of the
RTC and ordered for the dismissal of the complaint.
The CA ruled that it could not sustain the allegation of
fraud because Luistro failed to state with
particularity the circumstances constituting the
alleged fraud.

ISSUE:

WON the complaint alleges fraud with particularity as

required under Section 5, Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure?

RULING: No.

Section 5, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure states:

Section 5. Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. - In all

averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with
particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other
condition of the mind of a person may be averred
generally.