FACTS:

In this case, the petitioner, Victoria J. Ilano, filed a complaint against 15 named defendants and several John Does. One of the defendants, Amelia O. Alonzo, was a trusted employee of the petitioner who had gained her trust and confidence over the years. Alonzo was entrusted with the petitioner's Metrobank Check Book containing either signed or unsigned blank checks when the petitioner went to the United States for medical check-ups.

In December 1999, while the petitioner was recuperating from an illness, Alonzo deceitfully and abused her trust by procuring promissory notes and signed blank checks from her. Alonzo convinced the petitioner to sign antedated promissory notes payable to Edith Calilap and Danilo Calilap. Alonzo also had the petitioner sign a promissory note in favor of her co-defendants Estela Camaclang, Allan Camaclang, Leniza Reyes, Edwin Reyes, Jane Bacarel, and Cherry Camaclang.

Furthermore, Alonzo colluded with her co-defendants and induced the petitioner to sign several undated blank checks, which Alonzo's co-defendants later completed by indicating amounts opposite their names. Alonzo also colluded with defendant Nemia Castro in procuring the petitioner's signature in documents denominated as "Malayang Salaysay" dated July 22, 1999, and November 22, 1999, which were for certain amounts of money.

The petitioner alleged that the promissory notes, blank checks, and "Malayang Salaysay" were procured through fraud and deceit, claiming that there was no consideration for their issuance and seeking to have them cancelled, revoked, or declared null and void. The petitioner also sought damages, including moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and appearances in court fees. The named defendants filed their respective answers, asserting lack of cause of action as one of the grounds for dismissal.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the complaint filed by petitioner for revocation/cancellation of promissory notes and bills of exchange (checks) with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (TRO) should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint by the Regional Trial Court for lack of cause of action. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lack of cause of action is a ground for dismissal of a complaint.