G.R. No. 190432 - ASIA BREWERY, INC. AND CHARLIE S. GO, VS. EQUITABLE PCI BANK (NOW BANCO DE ORO-EPCI, INC.).D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we grant the petition. Failure to state a cause of action is not the same as lack of cause of action; the terms are not interchangeable. It may be observed that lack of cause of action is not among the grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The dismissal of a Complaint for lack of cause of action is based on Section 1 of Rule 33, which provides: Section 1. Demurrer to evidence. - After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied he shall have the right to present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence. (Emphasis supplied) If the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, a motion to dismiss must be made before a responsive pleading is filed; and the issue can be resolved only on the basis of the allegations in the initiatory pleading. [34] On the other hand, if the Complaint lacks a cause of action, the motion to dismiss must be filed after the plaintiff has rested its case. [35] In the first situation, the veracity of the allegations is immaterial; however, in the second situation, the judge must determine the veracity of the allegations based on the evidence presented. [36] In PNB v. Spouses Rivera , [37] this Court upheld the CA ruling that the trial court therein erred in dismissing the Complaint on the ground of lack of cause of action. We said that "dismissal due to lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions, or evidence presented by the plaintiff." [38] In the case at bar, the action has not even reached the pretrial stage. In Pamaran v. Bank of Commerce , [39] petitioners came directly to this Court and raised the issue of whether the trial court had erred in dismissing its Complaint only upon a motion to dismiss by way of affirmative defenses raised in the Answer of the defendant therein. The Court ruled then: Not only did the RTC Olongapo disregard the allegations in the Complaint, it also failed to consider that the Bankcom's arguments necessitate the examination of the evidence that can be done through a full-blown trial . The determination of whether Rosa has a right over the subject house and of whether Bankcom violated this right cannot be addressed in a mere motion to dismiss. Such determination requires the contravention of the allegations in the Complaint and the full adjudication of the merits of the case based on all the evidence adduced by the parties. (Emphasis supplied) In the same manner, the arguments raised by both of the parties to this case require an examination of evidence. Even a determination of whether there was "delivery" in the legal sense necessitates a presentation of evidence. It was e