Dismissal of Small Claims Cases for Lack of Cause of Action Are

Necessarily With Prejudice

Lourdes Suites vs Binaro
GR 2047129 Aug 6 2014
Facts:
Lourdes Suites filed before the MeTC a small-claims complaint against Binaro for
nonpayment of penalty charges on its rented rooms. Binaro responded with a
counterclaim. Lourdes Suites impugned the validity of Binaros pleading stating that it
did not comply with the form of an Answer as required in Rule 11, Sec 1 of the Rules of
Court.
The MeTC, after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack
of cause of action. Lourdes Suites filed a certiorari before the RTC arguing that lack of
cause of action is not a valid ground for dismissal of cases, much more a dismissal with
prejudice. It contends that a complaint even after the presentation of evidence cannot be
dismissed on ground of lack of cause of action because it is not expressly provided for
under the Rules on Small Claims Cases and the Rules of Civil Procedure, and that if there
was a failure to prove a cause of action the only available remedy would be a demurrer
filed by the defendant.
The RTC ruled that there was no grave of abuse of discretion on the part of the MeTC.
The MR was also denied. Hence, Lourdes Suites brought the issue to the SC via petition
for review under Rule 45.
Issue: W/N dismissal on the ground of lack of cause of action is proper under the
Rules of Court
Yes. The courts are not precluded from dismissing a case for lack of cause of action such
as insufficiency of evidence. In civil cases, courts must determine if the plaintiff was able
to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence.
The basis of the MeTC in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action is the
failure of plaintiff to preponderantly establish its claim by clear and convincing evidence.
Hence, MeTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the Complaint
for lack of cause of action, as it referred to the evidence presented and not to the
allegations in the Complaint.
The dismissal of the complaint with prejudice is likewise not an exercise of wanton or
palpable discretion. This case is an action for small claims where decisions are rendered
final and unappealable; hence, a decision dismissing it is necessarily with prejudice. ##
Notes

Failure to State a Cause of Action vs Lack of Cause of Action (Macaslang vs

Zamora, 2011)
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each
other. On the one hand, failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the
pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other
hand, lack of cause of action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the
cause of action alleged in the pleading. Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on
remedial law, has explained the distinction:
What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of action which is provided
in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of Rule 10,
which was also included as the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers to the
situation where the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is, therefore, a matter
of insufficiency of evidence.
The remedy in the failure to state a cause of action is to move for dismissal of the
pleading, while the remedy in the lack of cause of action is to demur to the evidence,
hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure
would consequently be to require the pleading to state a cause of action, by timely
objection to its deficiency; or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is
warranted.
Rule 16 Motion to Dismiss
Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint
or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of
limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is enforceable under the provisions
of the statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
Rule 33 Demurrer to Evidence
Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of
his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and
the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the

right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is
reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.