You are on page 1of 2

PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS and ROMEO G.

DELA ROSA, Petitioners, vs. ELENITA B. TRAZO,


G.R. No. 165500 August 30, 2006

FACTS:

Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM), respondent Elenita


B. Trazo opened a payroll account with China Banking Corporation (CBC) under
Current Account No. 101-003921-9. On December 29, 1997, petitioner Romeo G.
dela Rosa, PBCOM assistant vice-president, instructed CBC to credit all accounts
under its payroll with the medical and clothing subsidy for the year 1998. Respondent
Trazo resign from petitioner PBCom on 31 December 1997.

Petitioner dela Rosa wrote William Lim, CBC senior assistant vice-president,
on 5 January 1997 authorizing/directing CBC/Lim to debit the sum of P7,000.00 from
respondent Trazos current account. Respondent Trazo drew checks against her current
account in favor of Bliss Development Corporation (BDC) and the House of Sara Lee
Phils., Inc.However, the checks were dishonored by CBC due to insufficiency of
funds, which was occasioned by the P7,000.00 debit from her current account.

Respondent Trazo instituted an action for damages against PBCOM, dela


Rosa, CBC, and Lim before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch
79) averring that they had no authority to debiting her account.

On June 16, 1998, CBC and Lim filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on the
ground of improper venue. On 24 June 1998, PBCOM and dela Rosa filed their own
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

RTC RULING: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the case against defendants China Bank
and William Lim is DISMISSED on the ground of improper venue. The case against
defendants Philippine Bank of Communications and Romeo G. dela Rosa is
DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.

CA RULING: WHEREFORE, the omnibus order dated October 7, 1998 of the


Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 79) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and the complaint REINSTATED. Appellant is given ten (10) days from notice of
finality of this decision within which to amend the complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to constitute a


cause of action.

RULING:

Yes. In the case at bar, the allegations in the complaint verily show a cause of
action. We carefully scrutinize the allegations in the Complaint. It provides that
defendants PBCOM and ROMEO G. DE LA ROSA had no cause nor reason to
unilaterally order the debitting (sic) of plaintiffs account as it was her personal
property and not of defendant PBCOM. The Complaint also described the action of all
defendants, including petitioners PBCOM and dela Rosa, as unjust and illegal, and
done in a wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.

The cause of action stated in the Complaint, therefore, consists in (1) a right in
favor of the plaintiff, which in this case consists of a right to her personal property;
(2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect her right to her
personal property; and (3) an act of such defendant violative of the right of the
plaintiff, which in this case is the order by petitioners to CBC and Lim to debit
respondent Trazos account, an act which petitioners allege to have caused them
damage.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

DOCTRINE:

A cause of action exists if the following elements are present, namely:

(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) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative 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

You might also like