Scribd
Upload
219 views1 page

Abacan vs. Northwestern

The case involves a dispute between two factions within Northwestern University, Inc. (NUI) over control and allegations of unauthorized withdrawal of P1.4 million in corporate funds by the petitioners. The RTC ruled that the complaint states a valid cause of action as it alleges specific acts that justify the relief sought. The court emphasized that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which in this case, were deemed sufficient.

Uploaded by

Denzelle Feliciano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
219 views1 page

Abacan vs. Northwestern

The case involves a dispute between two factions within Northwestern University, Inc. (NUI) over control and allegations of unauthorized withdrawal of P1.4 million in corporate funds by the petitioners. The RTC ruled that the complaint states a valid cause of action as it alleges specific acts that justify the relief sought. The court emphasized that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which in this case, were deemed sufficient.

Uploaded by

Denzelle Feliciano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

GR NO.

140777, Apr 08, 2005


ANTONIO ABACAN v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

FACTS: Two opposing factions within respondent Northwestern University, Inc. (NUI), the
"Castro" and the "Nicolas" factions, seek control as the legitimate board thereof. NUI, through
Roy A. Nicolas of the "Nicolas faction," filed a complaint before the RTC of Laoag, for damages
with application for attachment against petitioners together with the employees of NUI belonging
to the "Castro faction”. NUI claims that between defendants acting together, and helping one
another, with herein petitioners taking undue and unlawful advantage of their respective
positions in Metrobank, withdrew and released to themselves, for their own personal gain and
benefit, corporate funds of NUI in the sum of P1.4 M without the knowledge, consent or approval
of NUI to the grave and serious damage and prejudice of the latter. NUI also claims that
defendants have not accounted for the said amount despite several demands for them to do so.
Petitioner Palanca filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint fails to state a cause of
action against her since she is not a real party in interest. RTC denied the motion and ordered
them to file their answer. Instead of filing their answers or a motion for reconsideration of the said
Order, herein petitioners went to the CA on a petition forcertiorariand prohibition raising the same
issues.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint states a cause of action?

RULING: YES. It is settled that the existence of a cause of action is determined by the allegations
in the complaint. In resolving a motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action,
only the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered. The test is whether the court can
render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer asked
for.Indeed, the elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint
alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded. Only ultimate facts and not legal
conclusions or evidentiary facts, which should not be alleged in the complaint in the first place,
are considered for purposes of applying the test.It is clear that a cause of action is present in the
complaint fileda quo. NUI has specifically alleged an act, that is, the undue withdrawal of funds
from its account with Metrobank, which the petitioners and the other defendants committed, to
the prejudice of NUI's rights.

You might also like