You are on page 1of 2

Metrobank vs Ley

Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
Actionable documents must be properly pleaded
All three elements of a cause of action must be present for it to be established.
Metrobank sued defendant corporation LCDC for unpaid obligations that the latter
incurred through a Letter of Credit. The trial court granted the demurrer. Metrobank,
through a Rule 45 petition, claims that it has established a cause of action. It further
claims that it has a cause of action grounded on a Trust Receipt executed by
defendants Spouses Ley which the former claims to be a primary actionable
Issues and Holding:
W/N a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) is the proper mode of appeal? NO
W/N the Trust Receipt was an actionable document? NO
W/N Metrobank has a cause of action? NO
The basic issue raised by the bank is a question of fact and is, thus, not a proper
subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which covers only
questions of law.
An actionable document is a written instrument on which an action or defense is
founded. It must be pleaded in either of the two ways, as found in Section 7, Rule 8
of the Rules of Court:
(1)by setting forth the substance of such document in the pleading and
attaching the document thereto as an annex, or
(2)by setting forth said document verbatim in the pleading.
The trust receipt was not pleaded in either of the two abovementioned ways.
The cause of action is determined by what the allegations in the body of the
complaint define and describe. It is not what a party says it is, nor is it what the
designation of the complaint states. A cause of action has three elements, namely:
(1)the existence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff;
(2)a correlative legal duty of the defendant to respect such right; and
(3)an act or omission by such defendant in violation of the right of the
plaintiff with a resulting injury or damage to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for the recovery of relief from the defendant.
Although the first two elements may exist, a cause of action arises only upon the
occurrence of the last element, giving the plaintiff the right to maintain an action in
court for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.

Metrobank does not have a cause of action as it failed to present preponderant

evidence that will establish the liability of the defendants (3 rd element).