Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12180 March 14, 1917
MARIANO CAŅETE, petitioner,
vs.
ADOLPH WISLIZENUS, judge of first instance of Cebu, and BASILIO SERNA, respondents.
McVean and Vickers for petitioner.
Nicolas Rafols for respondent Serna.
MORELAND, J.:
This is a proceeding begun in this court to obtain a writ of certiorari directed to the Court of First Instance of Cebu requiring it to send to this court the proceedings in an election contest pending in that court between Mariano Cañete and Basilio Serna, for revision by the court to the end that certain proceedings had therein may be revised and, in proper case, annulled. A demurrer was filed to the petition upon the ground that the facts set forth in the petition were not sufficient to sustain the proceeding.
The petition, or complaint as it is many times called, is fatally defective in form at least. It is as follows:
Comes now Mariano Cañete by the undersigned attorneys and respectfully show to the court:
1. That the petitioner is of legal age, a resident of the municipality of Dumanjug, Province of Cebu, Philippine Islands.
2. That the respondent Adolph Wislizenus is the judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu.
3. That the respondent Basilio Sena is of legal age, and a resident of the municipality of Dumanjug, Province of Cebu, Philippine Islands.
4. That the petitioner above named was the protestant in an election contest No. 2344, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Philippines Islands, entitled Mariano Cañete vs. Basilio Serna, a copy of which protest is filed herewith and made a part hereof marked Exhibit A.
5. That said petitioner through his attorney did cause notice to be served on the respondent Basilio Serna, Miguel Jakosalem, Leon Noel, Arsenio Climaco, Roman Zozobrado, as shown by Exhibits B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5 filed herewith and made a part hereof.
6. That no notice was served on Catalino Corona as appears by the affidavit of petitioner, a copy of which is filed herewith and made a part hereof marked Exhibit C.
7. That on July 22, 1916, the respondent, Basilio Serna, through his attorneys P. E. del Rosario and Nicolas Rafols, filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion which is filed herewith marked Exhibit D.
8. That on the same date (July 22, 1916) the petitioner through the undersigned attorneys filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion filed herewith marked Exhibit E.
9. That on July 24, 1916, Basilio Serna, respondent, through his attorneys filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion filed herewith marked Exhibit F.
10. That on July 25, 1916, the respondent Basilio Serna filed a second motion in said protest a copy of which is filed herewith and made a part hereof marked Exhibit G.
11. That on July 27, 1916, Guillermo Rubia entered his appearance in said protest as appears by Exhibit H.
12. That on the 1st day of August, 1916, the respondent, Adolph Wislizenus, exceeded his jurisdiction as judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cebu, without warrant in law, and, over the protest and objection of the petitioner herein, made and caused to be entered upon the records of said court in said special action No. 2344 a certain order, a true and correct copy of which is hereto attached marked Exhibit I and made a part hereof.
13. That there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy or adequate remedy from the decision or order of the respondent Adolph Wislizenus, judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.
1. Wherefore the petitioner asks this honorable court for an order directing the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Province to send to the Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands the complete record of the special procedure No. 2344, entitled Mariano Cañete, protestant, vs. Basilio Serna, prostestee.
2. For an order declaring null and void the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Province, in said special action No. 2344 of date August 1st, 1916.
3. For an order directing the respondent Adolph Wislizenus to proceed with the hearing of said protest as provided in such cases.
4. For an injunction against the respondent, Basilio Serna, enjoining said respondent from assuming the duties of president of the municipality of Dumanjug pending the final hearing of this protest by the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Cebu, Philippine Islands.
As will be seen at a glance the complaint consists almost wholly of a list of exhibits attached thereto and made a part thereof. It does not contain the facts constituting plaintiff's cause of action, but simply a list of exhibits to which the pleader refers for the facts upon which he relies.
Section 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint shall consist of "a brief statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language." This requirement has been ignored in the complaint before us. After reading the complaint itself one knows no more about plaintiff's cause of action that he did before.
Exhibits attached to a complaint do not take the place of allegations. They are referred to and annexed for the purpose of merely of supporting the allegations of fact made in the complaint. No matter how many exhibits may be attached to a complaint and made a part thereof, the pleader still lies under the duty of alleging in the complaint itself all of the facts necessary to establish his cause of action precisely the same as if the exhibits were not attached. To illustrate what is meant let us take paragraph 7 of the petition. That paragraph states:
That on July 22, 1916, the respondent, Basilio Serna, through his attorneys P. E. del Rosario and Nicolas Rafols, filed a motion in said protest as appears by a copy of said motion which is filed herewith marked Exhibit D.
It is clear that one who reads that paragraph obtains absolutely no information as to what the nature of the motion referred to therein was. The criticism of that allegation is that it lacks a statement of the nature and substance of the motion. The act of attaching Exhibit D does not relieve the pleader from the obligation of alleging in paragraph 7, and as a part thereof, the nature and substance of the motion.
The same may be said as to paragraph 8 in which the pleader refers to another motion. No one who reads the allegation contained in that paragraph is wiser. All of the other paragraph are subject to the same criticism. Paragraph 12 refers to "a certain order" without stating the nature of that order or the substance thereof; and one who has read the allegation knows no more about the order referred to than he did before he read it.
A court is not obliged, in order to know what the plaintiff's cause of action is, to search through a list of exhibits, more or less lengthy, and select what the court presumes the pleader intended to allege. The complaint itself must contain all of the facts necessary to establish plaintiff's cause of action so that when the court reads it can see upon the face of the complaint itself whether or not a cause of action is stated. If the pleader desires to refer to any motion or order or other proceeding and to make it a part of his complaint he must set out in the complaint itself the nature of the proceeding and the substance thereof in such a way as to show its relationship to and its effect upon the cause of action.
The petition not stating facts sufficient to warrant the relief prayed for the demurrer is sustained; and unless the plaintiff files an amended pleading within ten days the proceeding will be finally dismissed with costs. So ordered.
Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
