555 Phil. 295
QUISUMBING, J.:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the trial court's second impugned Order, thus:
Pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant-movant shall file its answer within the balance of the period prescribed by Rule 11, same Rules, to which defendant was entitled at the time of serving its motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event, computed from receipt of this order.
SO ORDERED.[7]
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.Respondent subsequently filed a motion to amend its complaint followed by its amended complaint. Petitioner, on the other hand, filed a motion to suspend proceedings. The trial court granted respondent's, but denied petitioner's motion, to wit:
The filing of the last pleading and the consequent joinder of issues has ripened this case for pre-trial which is hereby set...
Let notices of pre-trial be sent to the parties and their counsel.
SO ORDERED.[8]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing:Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari assailing the November 19, 1998 and March 24, 1999 Orders of the court a quo and praying for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The appellate court decreed:
1) Plaintiff's Urgent Motion to Amend Complaint With Leave of Court is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed on May 07, 1999 is hereby admitted in lieu of the original complaint which is hereby deemed withdrawn for all intents and purposes. Consequently, defendant is given fifteen (15) days after receipt of this Order within which to file its Amended Answer to plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
2) Defendant's Motion to Suspend Proceedings is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.[9]
WHEREFORE, the Order dated 19 November 1998 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 58 in Civil Case No. 98-1342 entitled "E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Inc. vs. Fluor Daniel, Inc. –Philippines" denying petitioner's Motion To Dismiss as well as its order of 24 March 1999 denying reconsideration thereof, are both affirmed.Hence, the instant petition, raising the following issues:
Accordingly, the temporary restraining order issued by the Ninth Division of this Court as contained in Resolution dated 25 May 2000 ... is hereby lifted.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Petitioner contends that the complaint utterly and miserably failed to state the operative facts which would give rise to a cause of action against it. Petitioner insists that the annexes attached to respondent's complaint and other pleadings should be considered in determining respondent's cause of action, or lack of it, against petitioner. Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals committed manifest error when it refused to consider the annexes to the complaint, showing respondent's admission that payment of its billings was subject to the condition of timely receipt of similar payments from petitioner.I.
Whether or not the Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against FDIP [PETITIONER] in light of the jurisprudential tests and guidelines laid down by this Honorable Court.II.
Whether or not the annexes attached to the Complaint should be considered in determining whether or not VILLAROSA's [RESPONDENT'S] Complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against FDIP in light of jurisprudential tests and guidelines laid down by this Honorable Court.III.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in refusing to consider the annexes to the Complaint, erred in failing to appreciate the clear admission of VILLAROSA [RESPONDENT] that payment of its billings was subject to the condition of timely receipt of similar payments from FIL-ESTATE.IV.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in refusing to consider the annexes to the Complaint, failed to appreciate the significance of VILLAROSA's [RESPONDENT'S] failure to satisfy the required criteria to justify payment under its monthly progress billings.[11]
SEC. 2. Cause of action, defined. – A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.The essential elements of a cause of action are as follows: 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 defendant not to violate such right; and 3) An act or omission on the part of the defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other relief.[12]
2.0 PRICING BASISOn their face, the said attached contracts, which define and delimit the rights and obligations of the parties, clearly require a specific condition before petitioner may be held liable for payment. The complaint, however, failed to state that the said condition had been fulfilled. Without the said condition having taken place, petitioner cannot be said to have breached its obligation to pay.
The Contract Price set forth herein is firm for the duration of the Work and includes all Contractor's costs, expenses, overhead and profit for complete performance of the Work.
x x x x
...Payment of the billings shall be subject to the timely receipt of similar payments from the client by Fluor Daniel. Any prolonged delay in payment by Fluor Daniel is subject to a suspension of activities by EBV within five (5) work days after proper written notice is provided by contractor to Fluor Daniel.[17] (Emphasis supplied.)