TORTS

CASE TITLE: Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. GR NUMBER: L-29041

v. First Farmers Milling Co. DATE: March 24, 1981
PONENTE: Melencio-Herrera, J.
Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. DEFENDANT: First Farmers Milling Co., Inc.
This is an appeal taken by Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. from the order dated November 28, 1967
issued by the CFI of Rizal, Branch VI (Pasig), in Civil Case No. 9185, as well as the Order dated March 5,
1968 denying the Motion for its reconsideration.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant had commenced, on March 18, 1966, an action for Injunction and Prohibition with
Damages against defendants First Farmers Milling Co., Inc. (FFMC), various named planters nearby, and
Ramon Nolan being the Administrator of the Sugar Quota Administration. It was alleged, that in the year of
1964, the defendant FFMC that operated a sugar central known as the First Farmers Sugar Central. Then, for
the crop years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the defendants transferred their quota allotments to their co-defendants
FFMC and are actually milling their sugar with FFMC. This illegal transfer of the quota allotments was
done over the protest and objections of the plaintiff, but with the unjustified illegal approval of their co-
defendant the Sugar Quota Administration.

After the defendants (FFMC, the adhering planters, and the Sugar Quota Administrator) had filed their
respective answers, the plaintiff-appellant filed a Motion to admit Amended and Supplemental Complaint.
PNB(Philippine National Bank) and NIDC (National Investment and Development Corporation) as party
defendants, “who became creditors of defendant FFMC central prior to the institution of the instant case,
and who therefore are necessary parties, is fatal to the complaint.” It was alleged, that defendants NIDC and
PNB extended loans to FFMC in the amount of P12,210,000.00 on June 18,1965 and P4,000,000.00 on Dec.
14, 1966, to assist in the illegal creation and operation of said mill, hence a joint tortfeasors in the trespass
of plaintiff’s rights. It was prayed that they be ordered to jointly and severally pay plaintiff actual and
exemplary damages of not less that P1 million pesos.

Then the defendant filed their respective answer. In their answer, the PNB and NIDC had contended that
they had no participation whatsoever either directly or indirectly on the alleged illegal transfer of the
defendant planters from the plaintiff to the defendant mill. In addition, the granting of loans by the
defendants PNB and NIDC in favor of the defendant mill did not violate any rights of the plaintiff because
these loans were extended in the ordinary and usual course of business as authorized by their charter. Hence,
the latter defendants did not commit any tortious action against the plaintiffs and, consequently the plaintiffs
have no cause of action against the defendants (PNB and NIDC).

ISSUE/S
WON the allegations of the Amended and Supplemental Complaint constituted a sufficient cause of action
against PNB and NIDC.
RULING
NO.

It is basic that the complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
plaintiff’s cause of action. “Ultimate facts” are the important and substantial facts, which either directly
form and basis of the plaintiff’s primary right, and duty, or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions
by the defendant.

When the ground for dismissal is that the complaint states 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. And the test of sufficiency of the facts alleged is whether or not the Court
could render a valid judgment as prayed for accepting as true exclusive facts set forth in the Complaint.

The subject Amended and Supplemental Complaint fails to meet the test. It is not supported by well-pleased
averment of facts. Nowhere is it alleged that defendants-appellees had notice, information or knowledge of
any flaw, much less any illegality, in their co-defendants’ actuations, assuming that there was such a flaw or
illegality. Although it is averred that the defendant’s acts were done in bad faith, the Complaint does not
contain any averment of facts showing that the acts were done in the manner alleged.

“The doing of an act which is in itself perfectly lawful will not render one liable as for a tort, simply
because the unintended effect of such act is to enable or assist another person to do or accomplish a
wrong, assuming, of course, that there was such wrong.”
DETAILS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT BUT MIGHT GET ASKED ANYWAY

Bad faith is never presumed (Art. 527, NCC). And it has been held that “to support a judgment for damages,
facts which justify the inference of a lack or absence of good faith must be alleged and proven.”

Santa’s Barbies 18-19