NM Rothschild vs Lepanto Consolidated Facts: Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

of Makati City a Complaint against petitioner NM Rothschild & Sons (Australia) Limited praying for a judgment declaring the loan and hedging contracts between the parties void for being contrary to Article 2018 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and for damages. Upon motion, the trial court authorized respondents counsel to personally bring the summons and Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney, Australia for the latter office to effect service of summons on NM ROTHSCHILD. Petitioner filed a Special Appearance With Motion to Dismiss praying for the dismissal of the Complaint on the ground, among others: the Complaint failed to state a cause of action and respondent does not have any against petitioner and the action is barred by estoppel. Petitioner also filed two Motions: (1) a Motion for Leave to take the deposition of Mr. Paul Murray (Director, Risk Management of petitioner) before the Philippine Consul General; and (2) a Motion for Leave to Serve Interrogatories on respondent. The trial court dismissed the motion to dismiss and the subsequent MR. The petitioners filed petition for certiorari with CA,dismissed. Issue: Whether or not there is a cause of action Ruling: It is basic that "[a] cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another." Its elements are the following: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right. We have held that to sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. The trial court held that the Complaint in the case at bar contains all the three elements of a cause of action. Indeed, petitioners defense against the charge of nullity of the Hedging Contracts is the purported intent of the parties that actual deliveries of gold be made pursuant thereto. Such a defense requires the presentation of evidence on the merits of the case. An issue that "requires the contravention of the allegations of the complaint, as well as the full ventilation, in effect, of the main merits of the case, should not be within the province of a mere Motion to Dismiss."26 The trial court, therefore, correctly denied the Motion to Dismiss on this ground. Umale vs Canoga Park Development Corp Facts: the parties entered into a Contract of Lease whereby the petitioner agreed to lease, for a period of two (2) years starting from January 16, 2000, a prime lot located in Ortigas Center, Pasig City owned by the respondent. The respondent acquired the subject lot through a Deed of Absolute Sale, subject to the following conditions: (1) that no shopping arcades or retail stores, restaurants, etc. shall be allowed to be established on the property, except with the prior written consent and (2) that the respondent and/or its successors-in-interest shall become member/s of the Ortigas Center Association, Inc. (Association), and shall abide by its rules and regulations.

On October 10, 2000, before the lease contract expired, the respondent filed an unlawful detainer case against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC)-Branch 68, Pasig City. The respondent used as a ground for ejectment the petitioners violation of stipulations in the lease contract regarding the use of the property. The MTC-Branch 68 decided the ejectment case in favor of the respondent. On appeal, the RTC-Branch 155, Pasig City affirmed in toto the MTC-Branch 68 decision but the case was re-raffled to the RTCBranch 267, Pasig City when the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Branch 155, upon motion, inhibited himself from resolving the petitioners motion for reconsideration. The RTC-Branch 267 granted the petitioners motion, thereby reversing and setting aside the MTC-Branch 68 decision. The respondent filed a petition for review with the CA on April 10, 2002 and during the pendency of the petition for review, the respondent filed another case for unlawful detainer against the petitioner before the MTC-Branch 71, Pasig City on the ground of expiration of the parties lease contract. ISSUE: WON there is litis pendentia. HELD: There is no litis pendentia. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, litis pendentia refers to a situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. We rule that Civil Case Nos. 8084 and 9210 involve different causes of action. Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action, such as whether the cause of action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. to which we answer in the negative. The facts clearly show that the filing of the first ejectment case was grounded on the petitioners violation of stipulations in the lease contract, while the filing of the second case was based on the expiration of the lease contract. At the time the respondent filed the first ejectment complaint the lease contract between the parties was still in effect. Thus, the cause of action in the second case was not yet in existence at the time of filing of the first ejectment case.