Cause of Action

Baliwag Transit vs. Ople

Facts: Private respondent Hughes was hired as a bus driver by Baliwag when it
met an accident on August 10, 1974 with an onrushing train of the Philippine
National Railway (PNR). The petitioner filed a complaint for damages against
PNR, which was held liable for its negligence. Hughes then sought reinstatement
claiming that soon after the decision against PNR he had his drivers license
renewed. Baliwag, however, ignored his requests several times. On May 10,
1980, the petitioner replied to say he could not be reinstated because his driver's
license had already been revoked and his driving was extremely dangerous to
the riding public.
Issue:
(1) What are the elements of cause of action?
(2) Did the cause of action of Hughes in seeking reinstatement accrue? Or,
when does Hughes cause of action accrue?
Held:
(1) It is settled jurisprudence that a cause of action has three elements, to wit, (1)
a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it
arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to
respect or not to violate such right; and (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 the defendant to the plaintiff.
(2) The Court agreed with Hughes that May 10, 1980, is the date when his cause
of action accrued, and not on August 10, 1974 when the mishap occurred, for it
was then that the petitioner denied his demand for reinstatement and so
committed the act or omission "constituting a breach of the obligation of the
defendant to the plaintiff." Hence, as the private respondent's complaint was filed
not later than three months only after such rejection, there is no question that his
action has not prescribed.

Cause of Action

Kramer vs. CA
Facts: On April 8, 1976, the F/B Marjolea, a fishing boat owned by petitioners
Ernesto Kramer, Jr. and Marta Kramer collided with an inter-island vessel, the
M/V Asia Philippines owned by the private respondent Trans-Asia Shipping
Lines, Inc. As a consequence of the collision, the F/B Marjolea sank, taking with it
its fish catch.
The Board of Marine Inquiry concluded that the loss of the F/B Marjolea and its
fish catch was attributable to the negligence of the employees of the private
respondent who were on board the M/V Asia Philippines during the collision. The
findings made by the Board served as the basis of a subsequent Decision of the
Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard dated April 29, 1982 wherein the
second mate of the M/V Asia Philippines was suspended from pursuing his
profession as a marine officer.
Issue: When does the cause of action for the recovery of damages by petitioners
Kramer accrue?
Held:
Under Article 1146 of the Civil Code, an action based upon a quasi-delict must be
instituted within four (4) years. The prescriptive period begins from the day the
quasi-delict is committed. From the foregoing ruling, it is clear that the
prescriptive period must be counted when the last element occurs or takes place,
that is, the time of the commission of an act or omission violative of the right of
the plaintiff, which is the time when the cause of action arises.
It is therefore clear that in this action for damages arising from the collision of two
(2) vessels the four (4) year prescriptive period must be counted from the day of
the collision. The aggrieved party need not wait for a determination by an
administrative body like a Board of Marine Inquiry, that the collision was caused
by the fault or negligence of the other party before he can file an action for
damages.
The collision occurred on April 8, 1976. The complaint for damages was filed in
court only on May 30, 1985, was beyond the four (4) year prescriptive period.

Cause of Action

Carpio vs. Valmonte:

Facts: Mrs. Valmonte, while hired as wedding coordinator, was accused by Mrs.
Carpio (brides aunt) to have stolen her pieces of jewelry (crime of theft).
Allegedly, Valmonte was bodily searched, interrogated and trailed by a security
guard throughout the evening. A few days after the incident, petitioner received a
letter from Valmonte demanding a formal letter of apology, but was ignored by the
latter. Hence, Valmote filed a complaint for damages (moral damages, among
others) against Carpio.
Issue: WON Valmonte has a right of action to recover damages? Or, does
Valmonte has a right of action that would warrant recovery of damages?
Held:
Yes.
To warrant recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action, for a wrong
inflicted by the defendant, and the damage resulting therefrom to the plaintiff.
Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of
action (Damnum Absque Injuria). In the case at bar, petitioners verbal reproach
against respondent was certainly uncalled for considering that by her own
account nobody knew that she brought such kind and amount of jewelry inside
the paper bag. This being the case, she had no right to attack respondent with
her innuendos which were not merely inquisitive but outrightly accusatory
Certainly, petitioner transgressed the provisions of Article 19 in relation to Article
21 for which she should be held accountable. Respondent is clearly entitled to an
award of moral damages.

Cause of Action

Quiogue vs. Bautista

Facts: This is an action to foreclose two deeds of mortgage executed to secure
the payment of two loans. But prior to the filing of the present complaint plaintiffs
had instituted before the Court of First Instance of Manila an action to foreclose a
first mortgage on the same properties and that on the date said action was filed
the two loans covered by the second and third mortgages which are herein
foreclosed had already matured (Civil Case No. 11969). It likewise appears that
judgment was duly entered in the first case and when a writ of execution was
issued to enforce it, it was fully satisfied by defendants.
Issue: WON Section 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court apply.
Held:
No.
The contention that his action is already barred by the filing of Civil Case No.
11969 for the simple reason that the two loans herein involved could have been
included in said action because at the time it was filed they had already matured,
is likewise untenable, considering that the first case refers to a transaction
different from those covered in the present case. Section 3, Rule 2, of our Rules
of Court, invoked by appellants, which provides that a single cause of action
cannot be split up into two or more parts so as to be made the subject of different
complaints, does not apply, for here there is not a single cause of action that was
split up, but several causes that refer to different transactions. And it was held
that a contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be violated
only once even if it contains several stipulations. Thus, non-payment of a loan
secured by mortgage constitutes a single cause of action. The creditor cannot
split up this single cause of action into two separate complaints, one for payment
of the debt and another for the foreclosure of the mortgage. If he does so, the
filing of the first complaint will bar the second complaint. In other words, the
complaint filed for the payment of certain debt shall be considered as a waiver of
the right to foreclose the mortgage executed thereon.

Cause of Action

Lapitan vs. Scandia

Facts: Lapitan purchased from Scandia thru its sub-dealer in Cebu a diesel
engine but one of its parts after more than two months from its purchase, broke.
Its replacement also broke after six days. Hence, Lapitan demanded for
rescission of the contract, plus damages. Scandia, however, did not pay the price
and damages sought for.
Issue: WON a prayer for damages may be joined in an action for rescission of
contract.
Held:
Yes.
Issues of the same nature may be raised by a party against whom an action for
rescission has been brought, or by the plaintiff himself. It is, therefore, difficult to
see why a prayer for damages in an action for rescission should be taken as the
basis for concluding such action as one capable of pecuniary estimation a
prayer which must be included in the main action if plaintiff is to be compensated
for what he may have suffered as a result of the breach committed by defendant,
and not later on precluded from recovering damages by the rule against splitting
a cause of action and discouraging multiplicity of suits.