View full case

ANTERO LUISTRO v. CA

FACTS:

First Gas Power Corporation (respondent) operates a gas-fired power generating facility under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Manila Electric Company (Meralco) wherein respondent sells electric power to Meralco. Respondent entered into a Substation Interconnection Agreement (SIA) with Meralco and the National Power Corporation (NPC) on September 2, 1997. The SIA required respondent to construct a 230-kilovolt electric power transmission line from its power plant site in Batangas City to Calaca, Batangas. To carry out this obligation, respondent entered into a Contract of Easement of Right-of-Way with Antero Luistro (petitioner), who owned a parcel of land in Batangas. The Contract granted respondent easement over a portion of petitioner's land for the erection of transmission line towers and overhead line cables.

On December 23, 1998, petitioner requested a temporary stoppage of work due to concerns that his house and other improvements were directly underneath the transmission line cables, posing a danger to the residents. Despite petitioner's concerns, the NPC dismissed the matter. In September 2000, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent and First Balfour Beatty Realty, Inc. for rescission, amendment, and modification of the Contract, alleging that he was induced to enter into the Contract through misrepresentation, fraud, and promises by respondent. Petitioner claimed that his house was supposed to be 20 to 25 meters away but was actually only 7.23 meters under the transmission line cables, posing a risk to his family's lives and properties.

The trial court denied respondent's Motion to Dismiss and ordered them to file their respective answers. Respondent sought reconsideration but was denied. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals, in its decision, set aside the trial court's orders and ordered the dismissal of the complaint, stating that the trial court failed to comply with the rules on motion to dismiss and that petitioner failed to state a cause of action. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the alleged breach by respondent was not in the Contract and that petitioner's allegations of fraud were not sufficiently specified.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court's 24 January 2001 and 13 November 2001 Orders failed to comply with Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  2. Whether the complaint states a sufficient cause of action.

  3. Whether the complaint alleges fraud with particularity as required under Section 5, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

RULING:

The petition has no merit.

  1. Violation of Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

    The trial court did not comply with the requirement to state clearly and distinctly the reasons for its resolution. The trial court's reasoning fell short of the prescribed standards.

  2. Sufficiency of Cause of Action:

    The complaint lacked a sufficient cause of action. The alleged breach and violation of the undertaking in the Contract did not exist, as the Contract merely granted an easement and did not specify the alleged promises.

  3. Allegation of Fraud:

    The complaint failed to allege fraud with particularity. The petitioner non-specifically stated misrepresentation, promises, and tricks without detailing the circumstances of the fraud. The Contract indicated that its terms were thoroughly explained to the petitioner, undermining the fraud claim.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 9 December 2002 Decision and 18 June 2003 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 68703 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: Resolution of motions must clearly and distinctly declare the reasons for the court’s decision.

  • Cause of Action: For a motion to dismiss based on a lack of cause of action, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Particularity in Alleging Fraud (Section 5, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure): Allegations of fraud must be stated with particularity, specifying the circumstances constituting the fraud.