CASE DIGEST : PNB v. Court of Appeals

 G.R. No. 121251 June 26, 1998

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and ROMEO BARILEA, respondents.

FACTS: On 12 November 1991 private respondent Romeo Barilea filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental against PNB. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint, petitioner filed on 17 January 1991 a motion to dismiss. On 18 February 1992 private respondent filed an amended complaint increasing the amounts prayed for as moral damages and attorney's fees. On 10 March 1992 the trial court issued an order dismissing the case for being moot and academic because the sale sought to be enjoined had already been conducted on 7 November 1991. The motion for reconsideration by private respondent was denied. Private respondent appealed the order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals. In its decision of 28 June 1995, the Court of Appeals set aside the order dismissing the case. Hence this petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erroneously failed to hold that (a) the dismissal of the case by the trial court was justified after it had become moot and academic with the foreclosure sale; (b) denial of the ancillary remedy of temporary restraining order was proper; and, (c) the foreclosure of the mortgage was valid in view of the contract between the parties and conformably with the mandatory requirements of PD No. 385.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in Denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

HELD: A complaint sufficiently states a cause of action when the following questions are answered in the affirmative: (a) Does the complaint show the plaintiff has suffered an injury? (b) Is it an injury which the law recognizes as a wrong and for which it provides a remedy? (c) Is the defendant liable for the alleged wrong done? and, (d) If the defendant is liable, is there a legal remedy for such injury? Applying these criteria to the complaint of private respondent, the same alleged facts are sufficient to state a cause of action for damages The complaint alleged that private respondent suffered actual expenses, moral anxiety and public humiliation, as a result of the alleged premature and malicious filing of the petition for foreclosure of mortgage over private respondent's property. Since the allegations in the complaint furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be maintained, the same should not have been dismissed regardless of the defense that may be raised by petitioner as defendant before the trial court