G.R. No. L-27010 - APRIL 1969 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-27010April 30, 1969 Marlene Dauden-Hernaez vs. Walfrido delos Angeles, et al. G.R. No. L-26679April 30, 1969 Joaquin Uypuanco vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-25604April 30, 1969 Paulo Rodriguez vs. Abrajano & Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24507April 30, 1969 Arsenio Reyes vs. Reynaldo B. Chavoso, et al. G.R. No. L-24402April 30, 1969 Pedro V.C. Enriquez vs. Secretary of Finance, et al. G.R. No. L-24273April 30, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Figueroa, et al. G.R. No. L-22382April 30, 1969 Republic Manufacturing Company, Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-19906April 30, 1969 Sterling Products International, Inc. vs. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengisellchaft G.R. No. L-28805April 29, 1969 National Power Corporation Supervisors' Union vs. National Power Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-25883April 29, 1969 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Caltex Dealers Association of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-25094April 29, 1969 Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Pan American Employees Association, et al. G.R. No. L-23973April 29, 1969 Cipriano Verastigue, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22341April 29, 1969 Jose Ramos vs. Honorato Garciano, et al. G.R. No. L-21690April 29, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Pujinio, et al. G.R. No. L-29930April 28, 1969 Benito Artuyo vs. Francisco Gonzalves, et al. G.R. No. L-28747April 28, 1969 Paz M. Garcia vs. Claudio Teehankee, et al. G.R. No. L-27588April 28, 1969 Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-27347April 28, 1969 Jose D. Villegas, et al. vs. Al Fernando, et al. G.R. No. L-25437April 28, 1969 In re: Yap Ek Siu Yap Ek Siu vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24901April 28, 1969 Jose Miranda Sampedro, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. L-24813April 28, 1969 Hermenegildo Serafica vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, et al. G.R. No. L-24163April 28, 1969 Regino B. Aro vs. Arsenio Nañawa, et al. G.R. No. L-23282April 28, 1969 Felipe Ganob, et al. vs. Remedios Ramas, et al. G.R. No. L-22587April 28, 1969 Rufino Bueno, et al. vs. Mateo H. Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-22418April 28, 1969 Felix Limon vs. Alejo Candido, et al. G.R. No. L-22012April 28, 1969 Otilla Sevilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-21483April 28, 1969 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Tax Apppeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20374April 28, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Sylvia Abonitalla de Ravidas G.R. No. L-20268April 28, 1969 Venancio Castañeda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20122April 28, 1969 Feliciano A. Castro vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-29910April 25, 1969 Antonio C. Favis vs. City of Baguio, et al. G.R. No. L-26789April 25, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Dicto Arpa, et al. G.R. No. L-26602April 25, 1969 In re: Lim Chuy Tian Lim Chuy Tian vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-26524April 25, 1969 Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-26416April 25, 1969 Julio Chua Lian Yan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-25709April 25, 1969 Rizal Surety and Insurance Company vs. Customs Arrastre Service G.R. No. L-25438April 25, 1969 In re: Willam Say Chong Say Chong Hai vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24508April 25, 1969 Central Sawmills, Inc. vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Company, et al. G.R. No. L-24166April 25, 1969 Fireman's Fund Insurance Company vs. Manila Railroad Company. G.R. No. L-23652April 25, 1969 IN re: Go Ay Koc Go Ay Koc vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22945April 25, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Arasa Han, et al. G.R. No. L-22799April 25, 1969 Tomas L. Canting vs. Restituto Guevara, et al. G.R. No. L-22452April 25, 1969 George Kalitas vs. Catalino Lido, et al. G.R. No. L-21492April 25, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Enriquito Tapitan, et al. G.R. No. L-26489April 21, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Odoncio Tarrayo, et al. G.R. No. L-20953April 21, 1969 People of the Philippines vs. Felipe T. Villas, et al. G.R. No. L-30052April 18, 1969 Camilo V. Peña vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-29113April 18, 1969 Paz M. Garcia vs. Claudio Teehankee, et al. G.R. No. L-27833April 18, 1969 In re: Arsenio Gonzalez Arsenio Gonzalez vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-25924April 18, 1969 Eduardo Z. Romualdez, et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Marlene Dauden-Hernaez vs. Walfrido delos Angeles, et al. Joaquin Uypuanco vs. Equitable Banking Corporation, et al. Paulo Rodriguez vs. Abrajano & Company, Inc., et al. Arsenio Reyes vs. Reynaldo B. Chavoso, et al. Pedro V.C. Enriquez vs. Secretary of Finance, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Figueroa, et al. Republic Manufacturing Company, Inc. vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. Sterling Products International, Inc. vs. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengisellchaft National Power Corporation Supervisors' Union vs. National Power Corporation, et al. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Caltex Dealers Association of the Philippines, et al. Pan American World Airways, Inc. vs. Pan American Employees Association, et al. Cipriano Verastigue, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jose Ramos vs. Honorato Garciano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Pujinio, et al. Benito Artuyo vs. Francisco Gonzalves, et al. Paz M. Garcia vs. Claudio Teehankee, et al. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Jose D. Villegas, et al. vs. Al Fernando, et al. In re: Yap Ek Siu Yap Ek Siu vs. Republic of the Philippines Jose Miranda Sampedro, et al. vs. Director of Lands, et al. Hermenegildo Serafica vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, et al. Regino B. Aro vs. Arsenio Nañawa, et al. Felipe Ganob, et al. vs. Remedios Ramas, et al. Rufino Bueno, et al. vs. Mateo H. Reyes, et al. Felix Limon vs. Alejo Candido, et al. Otilla Sevilla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Tax Apppeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sylvia Abonitalla de Ravidas Venancio Castañeda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Feliciano A. Castro vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Antonio C. Favis vs. City of Baguio, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dicto Arpa, et al. In re: Lim Chuy Tian Lim Chuy Tian vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Julio Chua Lian Yan vs. Republic of the Philippines Rizal Surety and Insurance Company vs. Customs Arrastre Service In re: Willam Say Chong Say Chong Hai vs. Republic of the Philippines Central Sawmills, Inc. vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Company, et al. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company vs. Manila Railroad Company. IN re: Go Ay Koc Go Ay Koc vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Arasa Han, et al. Tomas L. Canting vs. Restituto Guevara, et al. George Kalitas vs. Catalino Lido, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Enriquito Tapitan, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Odoncio Tarrayo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Felipe T. Villas, et al. Camilo V. Peña vs. Court of Appeals Paz M. Garcia vs. Claudio Teehankee, et al. In re: Arsenio Gonzalez Arsenio Gonzalez vs. Commission on Elections Eduardo Z. Romualdez, et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-27010               April 30, 1969

MARLENE DAUDEN-HERNAEZ,petitioner,
vs.
HON. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, HOLLYWOOD FAR EAST PRODUCTIONS, INC., and RAMON VALENZUELA,respondents.

R. M. Coronado and Associates for petitioner.
Francisco Lavides for respondent.

REYES, J.B.L.,Acting C.J.:

Petition for a writ ofcertiorarito set aside certain orders of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (Branch IV), in its Civil Case No. Q-10288, dismissing a complaint for breach of contract and damages, denying reconsideration, refusing to admit an amended complaint, and declaring the dismissal final and unappealable.

The essential facts are the following:

Petitioner Marlene Dauden-Hernaez, a motion picture actress, had filed a complaint against herein private respondents, Hollywood Far East Productions, Inc., and its President and General Manager, Ramon Valenzuela, to recover P14,700.00 representing a balance allegedly due said petitioner for her services as leading actress in two motion pictures produced by the company, and to recover damages. Upon motion of defendants, the respondent court (Judge Walfrido de los Angeles presiding) ordered the complaint dismissed, mainly because the "claim of plaintiff was not evidenced by any written document, either public or private", and the complaint "was defective on its face" for violating Articles 1356 and 1358 of the Civil, Code of the Philippines, as well as for containing defective allege, petitions. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the dismissal and for admission of an amended complaint, attached to the motion. The court denied reconsideration and the leave to amend; whereupon, a second motion for reconsideration was filed. Nevertheless, the court also denied it for beingpro forma, as its allegations "are, more or less, the same as the first motion", and for not being accompanied by an affidavit of merits, and further declared the dismissal final and unappealable. In view of the attitude of the Court of First Instance, plaintiff resorted to this Court.

The answer sets up the defense that "the proposed amended complaint did not vary in any material respect from the original complaint except in minor details, and suffers from the same vital defect of the original complaint", which is the violation of Article 1356 of the Civil Code, in that the contract sued upon was not alleged to be in writing; that by Article 1358 the writing was absolute and indispensable, because the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos; and that the second motion for reconsideration did not interrupt the period for appeal, because it was not served on three days' notice.

We shall take up first the procedural question. It is a well established rule in our jurisprudence that when a court sustains a demurrer or motion to dismiss it is error for the court to dismiss the complaint without giving the party plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint if he so chooses.¹Insofar as the first order of dismissal (Annex D, Petition) did not provide that the same was without prejudice to amendment of the complaint, or reserve to the plaintiff the right to amend his complaint, the said order was erroneous; and this error was compounded when the motion to accept the amended complaint was denied in the subsequent order of 3 October 1966 (Annex F, Petition). Hence, the petitioner-plaintiff was within her rights in filing her so-called second motion for reconsideration, which was actually a first motion against the refusal to admit the amended complaint.

It is contended that the second motion for reconsideration was merelypro formaand did not suspend the period to appeal from the first order of dismissal (Annex D) because (1) it merely reiterated the first motion for reconsideration and (2) it was filed without giving the counsel for defendant-appellee the 3 days' notice provided by the rules. This argument is not tenable, for the reason that the second motion for reconsideration was addressed to the court' refusal to allow an amendment to the original complaint, and this was a ground not invoked in the first motion for reconsideration. Thus, the second motion to reconsider was really notpro forma, as it was based on a different ground, even if in its first part it set forth in greater detail the arguments against the correctness of the first order to dismiss. And as to the lack of 3 days' notice, the record shows that appellees had filed their opposition (in detail) to the second motion to reconsider (Answer, Annex 4); so that even if it were true that respondents were not given the full 3 days' notice they were not deprived of any substantial right. Therefore, the claim that the first order of dismissal had become final and unappealable must be overruled.

It is well to observe in this regard that since a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading, the plaintiff-petitioner was entitled as of right to amend the original dismissed complaint. InPaeste vs. Jaurigue94 Phil. 179, 181, this Court ruled as follows:

The foregoing observations leave this Court free to discuss the main issue in this petition. Did the court below abuse its discretion in ruling that a contract for personal services involving more than P500.00 was either invalid of unenforceable under the last paragraph of Article 1358 of the Civil Code of the Philippines?

We hold that there was abuse, since the ruling herein contested betrays a basic and lamentable misunderstanding of the role of the written form in contracts, as ordained in the present Civil Code.

In the matter of formalities, the contractual system of our Civil Code still follows that of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 and of the "Ordenamiento de Alcala"²of upholding the spirit and intent of the parties over formalities: hence, in general, contracts are valid and binding from their perfection regardless of form whether they be oral or written. This is plain from Articles 1315 and 1356 of the present Civil Code. Thus, the first cited provision prescribes:

Concordantly, the first part of Article 1356 of the Code Provides:

These essential requisites last mentioned are normally (1) consent (2) proper subject matter, and (3) consideration orcausafor the obligation assumed (Article 1318).³So that once the three elements exist, the contract is generally valid and obligatory, regardless of the form, oral or written, in which they are couched.lawphi1.nêt

To this general rule, the Code admits exceptions, set forth in the second portion of Article 1356:

It is thus seen that to the general rule that the form (oral or written) is irrelevant to the binding effectinter partesof a contract that possesses the three validating elements of consent, subject matter, andcausa, Article 1356 of the Code establishes onlytwoexceptions, to wit:

(a) Contracts for which the law itself requires that they be in some particular form (writing) in order to make themvalid and enforceable(the so-calledsolemncontracts). Of these the typical example is the donation of immovable property that the law (Article 749) requires to be embodied in a public instrument in order "that the donation may be valid", i.e., existing or binding. Other instances are the donation of movables worth more than P5,000.00 which must be in writing, "otherwise the donation shall be void" (Article 748); contracts to pay interest on loans (mutuum) that must be "expressly stipulated in writing" (Article 1956); and the agreements contemplated by Article 1744, 1773, 1874 and 2134 of the present Civil Code.

(b) Contracts that the law requiresto be provedby some writing (memorandum) of its terms, as in those covered by the old Statute of Frauds, now Article 1403(2) of the Civil Code. Their existence not being provable by mere oral testimony (unless wholly or partly executed), these contracts are exceptional in requiring a writing embodying the terms thereof for their enforceability by action in court.

The contract sued upon by petitioner herein (compensation for services) does not come under either exception. It is true that it appears included in Article 1358, last clause, providing that "all other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing, even a private one." But Article 1358 nowhere provides that the absence of written form in this case will make the agreement invalid or unenforceable. On the contrary, Article 1357 clearly indicates that contracts covered by Article 1358 are binding and enforceable by action or suit despite the absence of writing.

It thus becomes inevitable to conclude that both the courta quoas well as the private respondents herein were grossly mistaken in holding that because petitioner Dauden's contract for services was not in writing the same could not be sued upon, or that her complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because it did not plead any written agreement.

The basic error in the court's decision lies in overlooking that in our contractual system it is not enough that the law should require that the contract be in writing, as it does in Article 1358. The law must further prescribe that without the writing the contract is not valid or not enforceable by action.

WHEREFORE, the order dismissing the complaint is set aside, and the case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings not at variance with this decision.

Costs to be solidarity paid by private respondents Hollywood Far East Productions, Inc., and Ramon Valenzuela.

Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J. and Castro, J., are on leave.
Capistrano, J., took no part.

Footnotes