Philippine Daily Inquirer v.

Alameda
G.R. No. 160604
March 28, 2008
FACTS:
Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) published an article entitled,
After Bong, whos next? in its August 1, 2000 issue. The article
narrated the death of Expedito Bong Caldez, who was a photo
correspondent in the Cagayan branch of PDI. Here, the family of
Caldez lamented his death due to the erroneous diagnosis of Dr. Luz
Babaran.
On Sept. 29, 2000, the PDI published another article, DOH
orders probe of fotogs death, where they reported that the regional
Department of Health (DOH) in Tuguegarao City has started
investigating the death of Expedito Caldez following an order from
the DOHs Bureau of Licensing and Regulation.
On July 25, 2001, Dr. Babaran filed a complaint for Damages
against PDI because of the two column articles printed by it. She
alleged that:
She wrote a letter to PDIs editor after learning about
the Aug. 1 article but did not receive a response
The 2nd article was published, again singling her out as
erroneously diagnosing the illness of Caldez
The DOH Fact-Finding Committee concluded that her
diagnosis was not erroneous, but this was not published
PDI acted in bad faith because of the above.
On Sept. 13, 2001, PDI filed their answer with counterclaims
and araised the following defenses:
Complaint states no cause of action
Complaint fails and omits to state factual premises to
support that there was malice on PDIs part in publishing
the questioned news
Babaran failed to allege actual malice
a case for actionable libel with claims for damages has
not been adequately stated in the complaint
complaint fails to establish basis of PDIs liability.
Pre-trial was held and terminated, and PDI filed a Motion for
a Preliminary Hearing on Affirmative Defense Raised in the
Answer (which is also a ground for a motion to dismiss). In
said motion, it was alleged that at the pre-trial, the court noted that
one of the defenses raised by PDI was that Babaran has not
delineated the participation of each of petitioners in the publication
of the alleged libelous articles. Thereupon, Babarans counsel asked
for a few days to determine whether the complaint should be
amended to cure its defects. However, Babaran had not moved

to amend the complaint, hence, PDI filed the motion. PDI

contended that:
in libel charges, the participation of each
defendant must be specifically alleged in the
complaint, which Babaran failed to do.
Allegations in complaint are mere conclusions of
law and opinions of Babaran.
PDI asked that a preliminary hearing be conducted on
their affirmative defense that the complaint failed to state a
cause of action; and after that, that the complaint be
dismissed.
Babaran filed a Comment/Opposition to such Motion and
averred that at the pre-trial, the issue of whether or not the
complaint states a cause of action was not raised, thus is no longer
an issue to be litigated.
RTC ruled in favor of Babaran, denying said Motion by PDI,
and said Babarans complaint properly stated a sufficient cause of
action and was supported by the documentary evidence she
produced. PDI filed a MR, but it was denied.
CA: PDI filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the
CA and prayed that the RTC decision be annulled and set aside
because it was rendered with GADALEJ; that the case be dismissed
for failure to state a cause of action. CA dismissed PDIs petition.
ISSUE: W/N a complaint which fails to validly and sufficiently state a
cause of action for libel should be dismissed because:
a. the participation of each defendant is not specifically set
out in the complaint
b. the material allegations of the complaint are conclusions of
law and just opinions of Babaran, not a statement of ultimate facts
HELD:
NO
There are 3 essential elements of a cause of action:
1. right in favor of the plaintif
2. obligation on the part of the defendant to respect or not to
violate such right
3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of
the right of the plaintif or constituting a breach of the
obligation of the defendant to the plaintif for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other
appropriate relief.
Of the three, the most important is the last element since it is
only upon the occurrence of the last element that a cause of action
arises, giving the plaintif the right to maintain an action in court for
recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. In determining
whether an initiatory pleading states a cause of action, the test is
as follows: admitting the truth of the facts alleged, can the
court render a valid judgment in accordance with the

prayer? To be taken into account are only the material

allegations in the complaint; extraneous facts and
circumstances or other matters aliunde are not considered.
The court may however consider, in addition to the complaint, the
appended annexes or documents, other pleadings of the plaintif, or
admissions in the records.
When a defendant seeks the dismissal of the complaint
through a motion to dismiss, the sufficiency of the motion
should be tested on the strength of the allegations of facts
contained in the complaint and on no other basis. The issue
of whether or not the complaint failed to state a cause of
action, warranting its dismissal, must be passed upon on the
basis of the allegations stated therein assuming them to be
true and the court cannot inquire into the truth of the
allegations and declare them to be false; otherwise, it would
be a procedural error and a denial of due process to the
plaintiff.
This Court finds that petitioners raised the threshold question of
whether the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action. Hence,
the trial court should have granted petitioners motion for a
preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses raised in the answer
based on failure to state a cause of action. This procedure is
designed to prevent a tedious, if not traumatic, trial in case the
complaint falls short of sufficiently alleging a cause of action.