Ultimate facts are essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient [1] . Here, petitioner has not alleged ultimate facts to support its claim that bundling will create a monopoly, in violation of the Constitution. By merely stating legal conclusions, petitioner did not present any sufficient allegation upon which the Court could grant the relief petitioner prayed for. [2] In Zuñiga­-Santos v. Santos-Gran, we held that “[a] pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as distinguished from mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of law. General allegations that a contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair, and reasonable, are mere conclusions of law . Likewise, allegations that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or against public policy, without stating facts showing its invalidi

G.R. No. 215545 January 7, 2019 890 SCRA 42 QUIRINO T. DELA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, respondent. Ponente: LEONEN, J.: Doctrines: (1) Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari shall only pertain to questions of law. (2) The relaxation of procedural rules is warranted only if compelling and justifiable reasons exist. (3) The relaxation of procedural rules may be allowed only when there are exceptional circumstances to justify the same. (Waterfront Cebu City Casino Hotel, Inc. vs. Ledesma, 754 SCRA 400 [2015]) Nature of Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the June 27, 2014 Decision and November 18, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 131189. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Civil Service Commission September 11, 2012 Decision holding that petitioner’s appeal was filed out of time, and thus affirmed the January 12, 2010 National Police Commission’s Decision dismissing petitioner for grave m

The “last pleading” is defined as “the answer ordinarily is the last pleading, but when the defendant’s answer contains a counterclaim, plaintiff’s answer to it is the last pleading. When the defendants answer has a cross claim, the answer of the cross-defendant to it is the last pleading. Where the plaintiff’s answer to a counterclaim contains a counter claim against the opposing party or a cross-claim against a co-defendant, the answer of the co-defendant to the cross-claim is the last pleading. And where the plaintiff files a reply alleging facts in denial or avoidance of new matter by way of defense in the answer, such reply constitutes the last pleading. (Peggy v. Tapucar, 88 SCRA 785)

157 SCRA 827 1/29/88 Doctrines: 1.) Conciliation process at the barangay level is a condition precedent to the filing of a complaint in court; Non-compliance with the condition precedent affects the sufficiency of plaintiffs cause of action. 2.) Once the parties have signed an amicable settlement, any party who finds reasons to reject it must do so by filing a sworn statement of the repudiation with the barangay captain pursuant to Sec. 13 of PD 1508. 3.) Any party who fails to avail himself of the remedy under Sec. 13 of PD 1508 must face the consequences of the amicable settlement as he can no longer file an action in court to redress his grievances. 4.) Amicable settlement and arbitration award have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court unless repudiation has been made within the ten-day period or a petition for nullification of the award has been filed in court. 5.) PD 1508 does not provide fora judicial procedure for annulment of an amicable settlement because the re

People vs. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng first laid down the distinction between entrapment vis-à-vis instigation or inducement, thus: The doctrines referring to the entrapment of offenders and instigation to commit crime, as laid down by the courts of the United States, are summarized in 16 Corpus Juris, page 88, section 57 , as follows: ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. — While it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned and has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilitates for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present

Bernabe vs Alejo (2002) G.R. No. 140500 | 2002-01-21 374 SCRA 180-191 Doctrines: 1.) Under the new law, an action for the recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. 2.) The Family Code provides the caveat that rights that have already vested prior to its enactment should not be prejudiced or impaired. 3.) The rules on voluntary and compulsory acknowledgment of natural children, as well as the prescriptive period for filing such action, may likewise be applied to spurious children. 4.) The Family Code has retroactive effect unless there be impairment of vested rights. (Jison vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 495 [1998]) 5.) The right to seek recognition granted by the Civil Code to illegitimate children who were still minors at the time the Family Code took effect cannot be impaired or taken away. The minors have up to four years from attaining majority age within which to file an action for recognition.   Facts: The late Fis