Manaloto v.
Veloso III - Veloso may have stated the same factual antecedents that transpired in the
GR No. 171365 | 632 SCRA 347 | October 6, 2010
Petition: Petition for review on certiorari
Petitioner: ERMELINDA C. MANALOTO, AURORA J. CIFRA, FLORDELIZA J.
ARCILLA, LOURDES J. CATALAN, ETHELINDA J. HOLT, BIENVENIDO R.
JONGCO, ARTEMIO R. JONGCO, JR. and JOEL JONGCO,
Respondent: ISMAEL VELOSO III
DOCTRINE
When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of action, such
fact can be determined only from the facts alleged in the complaint and from no other,
and the court cannot consider other matters aliunde
FACTS
- Manaloto, et al. alleged that they are the lessors of a residential house
located at Quezon City which was leased to Veloso for a monthly rental of
17k.
- Despite repeated demands, Veloso failed to pay the monthly rentals. Thus,
Manaloto et al. filed an unlawful detainer case against Veloso.
- Veloso denied the nonpayment of rentals and alleged that he made an
advance payment of P825,000.00 when he paid for the repairs done on the
leased property.
- Metropolitan Trial Court decided in favor of Manaloto and ordered Veloso to
vacate the premises and pay the rentals. Veloso appealed to RTC br.88.
- While the appeal is still pending, Veloso filed a complaint for Breach of
Contract and Damages with the RTC br. 227
- The said complaint alleged two cause of action:
o 1st Cause of action was for damages, because he supposedly
suffered embarrassment and humiliation when Manaloto distributed
copies of MeTC decision to the Homeowners
o 2nd Cause of action was for Breach of Contract, since Manaloto
failed to repair and preserve the property.
- Manaloto filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the dismissal of Velosos
complaint. He alleged that Veloso had no cause of action against them
because the MeTC decision was a matter of public record and its disclosure
to the public violated no law or any legal right of the respondent.
RTC br. 227: dismissed Velosos Complaint for violating the rule against splitting of
cause of action, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to disclose the pendency of a related
case.
CA: affirmed with modification
- Affirmed the dismissal of 2nd Cause of action (Breach of Contract)
- Reversed the dismissal of 1st Cause of Action.
unlawful detainer case, such allegations were necessary to give an overview
of the facts leading to the institution of another case between the parties
before the RTC acting in its original jurisdiction.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
W/N the 1st cause of action must be dismiss
RULING & RATIO
1. NO
- According to Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is the
act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
- When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states no cause of
action, such fact can be determined only from the facts alleged in the
complaint and from no other, and the court cannot consider other matters
aliunde
- A cause of action (for damages) exists if the following elements are present:
o (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created
o (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect
or not to violate such right and
o (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative
of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may
maintain an action for recovery of damages..
- First, Veloso filed the complaint to protect his good character, name, and
reputation. Every man has a right to build, keep, and be favored with a good
name.
- Second, Manaloto are obliged to respect respondents good name even
though they are opposing parties in the unlawful detainer case
- Third, distribution by Manaloto to Horseshoe Village homeowners of copies
of the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case, which still on appeal
before the RTCBranch 88, had no apparent lawful purpose except to
humiliate respondent or assault his character.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Decision dated January 31, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 82610 is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The award of moral and exemplary damages
made by the Court of Appeals in favor of respondent Ismael Veloso III is DELETED.
The complaint of respondent Ismael Veloso III in Civil Case No. Q0248341 is hereby
REINSTATED before Branch 227 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City only in so
Page 1 of 2
far as the first cause of action is concerned. The said court is DIRECTED to hear and
dispose of the case with dispatch.

Page 2 of 2