De los Santos, Lara Aurea L.

RULE 16 SECTTION 1 (g)

MOTION TO DISMISS

MAGELLAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION vs. PHILIPPINE AIR FORCE

FACTS

(Philippine Air Force) PAF contracted Chervin Enterprises, Inc. (Chervin) for the overhaul of two T76 aircraft engines.

Chervin commissioned MAC to do the work. MAC, in turn, outsourced the overhaul service from another subcontractor,
National Flight Services, Inc. (NFSI).

The engines were overhauled, delivered, and was accepted to and by PAF.

MAC demanded from Chervin the payment of the balance of the contract price but was not paid. MAC demanded from PAF
the release of the retained amount. PAF rejected the demand. MAC filed a complaint for sum of money before the RTC
against Chervin and the PAF.

Chervin and PAF filed Motions to Dismiss.

ISSSUE

Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that it states no cause of action.

RULING

Yes. The complaint did not state a cause of action.

RULE 16 Section 1. Grounds. — Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim,
a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;

Principle: By filing a Motion to Dismiss, one is hypothetically admitting the allegations stated in the complaint.

MAC’s complaint alleged that Chervin acted for and in behalf of a "principal," PAF. MAC contends that since PAF moved to
dismiss, they hypothetically admitted the allegations in MAC’s complaint. Thus, PAF is liable to them.

The Supreme Court held that the assumption of truth (commonly known as hypothetical admission of truth), accorded
under the test, does not cover all the allegations pleaded in the complaint. Only ultimate facts or those facts which the
expected evidence will support are considered for purposes of the test. It does not cover legal conclusions or evidentiary
facts.

The averment that Chervin acted as PAF's mere agents in subsequently contracting MAC to perform the overhauling
services is not an ultimate fact. Nothing can be found in the complaint that can serve as a premise of PAF's status as the
principal in the contract between Chervin and MAC. No factual circumstances were alleged that could plausibly convince
the Court that PAF was a party to the subsequent outsourcing of the overhauling services. Not even in the annexes can the
Court find any plausible basis for the assertion of MAC on PAF's status as a principal.

Thus, MAC had no cause of action against PAF. In effect, it was proper to have the complaint be dismissed.