Ultimate facts

-
    1. 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].
    2. 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 invalidity, are mere conclusions of law.” The present action should thus be dismissed on the ground of failure to state cause of action. [3]
    3. Similar to its assertion that bundling will create a monopoly prohibited by law, we find that petitioner, again, utterly failed to sufficiently state a cause of action, by failing to plead ultimate facts to support its conclusion that bundling, as an arrangement, is in restraint of trade or results in unfair competition under the provisions of RA No. 10667. [4]
    4. Even granting that the petition sufficiently pleads a cause of action for the foregoing violations, there is a need to receive evidence to test the premises of petitioner’s conclusions. [5]
    5. There are two (2) facta probanda, or ultimate facts, necessary to establish that martial law was properly extended, namely: (1) the persistence of an actual rebellion; and (2) that public safety requires the extension of martial law. [6]
      1. Of course, no single piece of evidence can establish these ultimate facts. There must be an attempt to establish them through evidentiary facts, which must, in turn, be proved by evidence — not bare allegations, not suspicion, not conjecture.
      2. Letters stating that rebellion persists and that public safety requires the extension of martial law do not prove the facta probanda. The letters only prove that the writers thereof wrote that rebellion persists and public safety requires the extension of martial law. Lists of violent incidents do not prove the facta probanda; they only tend to prove the factum probans that there were, in fact, violent incidents that occurred. But, assuming the evidence is credible to prove the factum probans that violent incidents have occurred, this factum probans, without context, is insufficient to show that rebellion persists.
      3. We do not conflate the factum probandum with the factum probans. Muddling the two undermines the review required by the Constitution. It will lead this Court to simply accept the allegations of the government without any modicum of review. [7]
[1] Remitere v. Montinola, G.R. No. L-19751 (1966)
[2] Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications, 896 SCRA 213, G.R. No. 217158 March 12, 2019
[3] Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications, 896 SCRA 213, G.R. No. 217158 March 12, 2019
[4] Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications, 896 SCRA 213, G.R. No. 217158 March 12, 2019
[5] Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications, 896 SCRA 213, G.R. No. 217158 March 12, 2019
[6] Lagman vs. Medialdea, 893 SCRA 242, G.R. No. 243522 February 19, 2019
[7] Lagman vs. Medialdea, 893 SCRA 242, G.R. No. 243522 February 19, 2019

 

CASE LISTS HERE