SC allows MTC to dismiss action for insufficiency of evidence


THE ISSUES

Petitioner alleges that the RTC "cannot validly sustain the Decision of the [MeTC], because the latter acted withgrave abuse of discretion based on the following grounds":

           1. A dismissal based on the ground that the [c]omplaint states no cause of action cannot be deemed a dismissal with prejudice under the Rules;
           2. The existence of a cause of action is determined only by the facts alleged in the complaint, [but the MeTC Decision] was anchored on the evidence of Defendant, now Respondent x x x ;
           3. If the dismissal is not moored on the face of the [c]omplaint, lack of cause of action arises only when the action is not brought in the name of the real party in interest x x x ; and
           4. Lack of cause of action, much less with prejudice, is not set forth as a ground for dismissal in both the Rule[s] of Procedure For Small Claims Cases and the Rules of Civil Procedure x x x.15

THE COURT'S RULING

The petition must be denied. The RTC correctly upheld the MTC Decision. Petitioner argues that even after the presentation of evidenceby both parties, a complaint cannot be dismissed with prejudice based onlack of cause of action because: (1) this ground is not expressly provided for under the Rules on Small Claims Cases;16 and (2) if there was a failure to prove a cause of action the only available remedy would be a demurrer filed bythe defendant.17

It appears petitioner has misinterpreted our ruling in Macaslang v. Zamora,18 which petitioner cited in its petition before this Court.19 In Macaslang, we stated that:

[F]ailure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really different from each other.On the one hand, failure to state a cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 ofthe Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause [of] action refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged inthe pleading. Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on remedial law, has explained the distinction:

x x x What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of action which is provided in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of Rule 10, which was also included as the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers to the situation where the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is, therefore, a matter of insufficiency of evidence. Failure to state a cause of action is different from failure to prove a cause of action. The remedy in the first is tomove for dismissal of the pleading, while the remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence, hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this section. The procedure would consequently be to require the pleading to state· a cause of action, by timely objection to its deficiency; or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted.20

The remedies discussed in Macaslang are those which are available to the defendant. The courts are not precluded from dismissing a case for lack of cause of action (i.e. insufficiency of evidence). In civil cases, courts must determine if the plaintiff was able to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence which is defined as "x x x the probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto."21
As correctly stated by the RTC:

The basis of [the] public respondent in dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action is the failure of petitioner to preponderantly establish its claim against the private respondent by clear and convincing evidence. Hence, public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action, as he referred to the evidence presented and not to the allegations in the Complaint.

The dismissal of the complaint with prejudice is likewise not an exercise of wanton or palpable discretion. It must be noted that this case is an action for small claims where decisions are rendered final and unappealable, hence, a [d]ecision dismissing the same is necessarily with prejudice.22

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 7 September 2012 of Branch 148 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati in SCA Case No. 12-458 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. (Lourdes Suites v. Binaro; G.R. No. 204729; August 6, 2014)