Cañete v. Wislizenus
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an election contest for the position of municipal president of Dumanjug, Cebu. Mariano Cañete was the protestant (petitioner) and Basilio Serna was the protestee (respondent) in this election contest. 2. Procedural History: Following the election contest initiated in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Special Action No. 2344), various motions were filed by both parties. The respondent judge, Adolph Wislizenus, issued an order on August 1, 1916, which the petitioner alleges was in excess of his jurisdiction and without legal warrant. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court to review and potentially annul this order. 3. The Petition: This proceeding was initiated in the Supreme Court via a petition for a writ of certiorari. The petitioner sought to have the Supreme Court review and annul an order issued by the respondent judge. The petition, however, was deemed fatally defective for failing to state sufficient facts constituting the cause of action, relying instead on a lengthy list of attached exhibits without adequately alleging the substance of the motions and orders referenced within the complaint itself.
Issue(s)
Whether a complaint is sufficient in form when it relies almost exclusively on attached exhibits to state the cause of action instead of alleging the facts within the body of the pleading.
Ruling
The demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the proceeding was ordered dismissed unless an amended pleading was filed within ten days.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the petition was fatally defective because it ignored the mandate of Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This provision requires a 'brief statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language,' a standard that the petitioner failed to meet by merely listing exhibits. The Court clarified that exhibits are annexed for the purpose of supporting allegations, not for taking their place. Even with multiple exhibits, a pleader is still bound to allege all facts necessary to establish the cause of action as if the exhibits were not attached. In this case, the paragraphs in the petition lacked descriptions of the substance and nature of the motions and orders being challenged, rendering the pleading unintelligible on its face. The Court held that it is not the judiciary's responsibility to search through exhibits to determine what the pleader intended to allege, as the complaint must be self-sufficient for the court to determine if a cause of action exists.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari must contain a clear statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, and exhibits attached to the petition do not substitute for the required allegations. The complaint itself must contain all necessary facts to establish the cause of action.