Mendoza v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Julian Mendoza entered into a written contract with respondents, spouses Renato and Corazon Macapagal, for the construction of a residential house for P320,000.00. Disagreements arose regarding additional work performed by Mendoza, which he claimed was requested by the Macapagals, and unpaid balances. The Macapagals, in turn, alleged abandonment of the job and claimed damages. Procedural History: Mendoza filed a complaint seeking recovery of P145,814.00 for additional work and P48,000.00 as unpaid balance. After the Macapagals filed their answer, they moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, citing Article 1724 of the Civil Code for the additional work claim due to lack of written authorization. The respondent Judge granted the motion, dismissing the entire complaint. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner Julian Mendoza appealed the dismissal orders, arguing that the motion to dismiss was filed out of time after an answer was submitted and that the complaint stated two causes of action: one for additional work and another for the unpaid balance. He contended that even if the claim for additional work was invalid due to lack of written authorization, the claim for the unpaid balance of the contract price remained valid and stated a cause of action.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the entire complaint for failure to state a cause of action, despite the complaint alleging a claim for the unpaid balance of the contract price. Whether the motion to dismiss was filed prematurely.
Ruling
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the orders of the respondent Judge. The motion to dismiss was deemed denied, and the records were remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. The Court found that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for the recovery of the unpaid balance of the contract price.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the entire complaint. While the claim for additional work might be questionable under Article 1724 of the Civil Code due to the absence of written authorization, the complaint also alleged a cause of action for the recovery of P48,000.00, representing the unpaid balance of the original contract price. The allegations in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint clearly stated that the respondents contracted to pay P320,000.00, paid only P272,000.00, leaving a balance of P48,000.00, which remained unpaid despite demands. These allegations, deemed hypothetically admitted for the purpose of a motion to dismiss, sufficiently constitute a cause of action. The defenses raised by the respondents, such as abandonment of work and expenses incurred for completion, are matters of evidence to be proven during trial and do not negate the sufficiency of the cause of action as pleaded in the complaint. The Court emphasized that a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action must be resolved solely on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. On Issue 2: The Court found no merit in the contention that the petition was filed out of time. The petitioner received the order dismissing the complaint on January 25, 1977, filed a motion for reconsideration on February 1, 1977, received the order denying the motion on March 21, 1977, and filed the instant petition on April 4, 1977, which was within the fifteen-day reglementary period. The Court also clarified that the proceeding was an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Republic Act No. 5440, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, thus refuting the claim that it was a substitute for appeal. The motion for reconsideration was not pro-forma as it called the court's attention to a point it had ignored, and the requirement of an affidavit of merit was not applicable to a motion for reconsideration based on the grounds presented.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action must be resolved based solely on the allegations in the complaint, which are hypothetically admitted. The Court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for the recovery of the unpaid balance of the contract price, even if the claim for additional work might be barred by Article 1724 of the Civil Code due to lack of written authorization. The Court emphasized that defenses raised by the respondent, such as abandonment of work, are matters of evidence to be proven during trial and do not negate the sufficiency of the cause of action as pleaded.