CASE DIGEST : Misamis Occidental II Coop., Inc. v. David,

 G.R. No. 129928 August 25, 2005

MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioners,

vs.

VIRGILIO S. DAVID, Respondent

FACTS: Private respondent Virgilio S. David filed a case for specific performance and damages against MOELCI II. The said case, which was essentially a collection suit, pending before Judge Felixberto Olalia. MOELCI II filed its Answer to Amended Complaint. In his opposition to MOELCI II’s Motion, David contended in the main that because a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action is required to be based only on the allegations of the complaint, the "quotation letter," being merely an attachment to the complaint and not part of its allegations, cannot be inquired into. MOELCI II filed a rejoinder to the opposition in which it asserted that a complaint cannot be separated from its annexes; hence, the trial court in resolving a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action must consider the complaint’s annexes. After the parties filed their respective memoranda, Judge Olalia issued an order dated 16 November 1995 denying MOELCI II’s motion for preliminary hearing of affirmative defenses. MOELCI II’s motion for reconsideration of the said order was likewise denied in another order issued by Judge Olalia. MOELCI II elevated this incident to the Court of Appeals by way of a special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Olalia in the issuance of the two aforesaid orders. On 14 March 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed MOELCI II’s petition. With the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner is now before this Court seeking a review of the appellate court’s pronouncements

ISSUE: WON Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and in holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion

HELD: To determine the existence of a cause of action, only the statements in the complaint may be properly considered. The Court cannot take cognizance of any external facts or hold preliminary hearings to determine their existence. If the allegation in the complaint is sufficient, it cannot be dismissed regardless of the defense that may be averred by the defendants. The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether or not admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of said complain. SC believe all the foregoing sufficiently lay out a cause of action. Even extending our scrutiny to Annex "A," which is after all deemed a part of the Amended Complaint, will not result to a change in our conclusion