Bacolod- Murcia Milling Co. vs First Farmers Milling Co., Inc. GR No.

L-29041, March 24, 1981

NATURE:

FACTS:

Plaintiff-appellant primarily filed an action for injunction and prohibition against First Family Milling
Co, various planters and the Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration for the alleged illegal
transfer of the sugar quota by the farmers from the plaintiff to the defendant sugar mill. After filing
the answers of the defendants, the plaintiff filed a Motion to admit Amended and Supplemental
Complaint against PNB and NIBC for extending loans towards the defendants. Hence PNB and NIDC
were added as defendants. PNB and NIDC… filed a Motion to Set for Preliminary Hearing their
special and affirmative defenses, which were also grounds for dismissal. After the preliminary
hearing, the trial Court dismissed the Amended and Supplemental Complaint against the PNB and
NIDC for lack of cause of action.

ISSUE: Whether the allegations of the Amended and Supplemental Complaint constituted a
sufficient cause of action against the PNB and NIDC.

HELD:

The court ruled in negative. The court held that the Complaint must contain a concise statement of
the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The court continued that when the
ground for dismissal is that the Complaint states no cause of action, the rule is that its sufficiency
can only be determined by considering the facts alleged in the Complaint and no other. The
allegations in the Complaint must be accepted as true and it is not permissible to go beyond and
outside of them for date or facts. A bare statement neither establishes any right or cause of action
on the part of the plaintiff-appellant, it is a mere conclusion of law not sustained by declarations of
facts, much less admitted by defendants-appellees. It does not, therefore, aid in any wise the
complaint in setting forth a cause of action.

POINTS TO REMEMBER:

ULTIMATE FACTS - are the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the
plaintiff's primary right and duty, or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions by the
defendant.

CONCLUSION OF LAW - a bare statement which neither establishes any right or cause of action on
the part of the plaintiff-appellant.

TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTS ALLEGED

➢ whether or not the Court could render a valid judgment as prayed for, accepting as true the
exclusive facts set forth in the Complaint.