SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

Q: How do you determine the singleness of a cause of action?

A: The singleness of a cause of action is determined by the singleness of the delict or wrong committed by the defendant and not by the number of remedies that the law grants the injured party. Meaning, a single delict may give rise to two or more possible remedies but it does not mean to say the injured party can avail of all those remedies simultaneously or one after another. (Bachrach vs. Icariñgal, supra; David vs. De la Cruz, L-11656, April 18, 1958)

EXAMPLE: Obligations and Contracts: A violation or a breach of contract could give rise to a civil action for specific performance or a civil action for rescission of contract. However, it does not mean to say that the injured party can file both or one after the other. Otherwise, he will be splitting his cause of action.

EXAMPLE: There is the Recto Law (on Sales) on the remedies of an unpaid seller of personal properties. I think the law grants three remedies – (1) rescind the contract of sale; (2) exact fulfillment of obligation; and (3) foreclosure of mortgage. But even the law on Sales is very clear: the choice of one automatically bars resort to the other because it will be against splitting the cause of action.

EXAMPLE: Credit Transactions: A bank has two (2) possible remedies against a debtor for non- payment of a loan secured by a mortgaged say, piece of land: (1) foreclose the mortgage on the land; or (2) file an action to collect the loan. Here, the bank cannot file a case the debtor to collect the loan and at the same time file an action to foreclose the mortgage for it will be splitting the cause of action. So it is either you enforce the principal contract of loan, or, you enforce the accessory contract of mortgage. This is what happened in the case of

DANAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS

154 SCRA 446

FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from the bank, mortgaged their property and then they failed to pay. The bank filed a civil action to collect the loan. After filing a

civil action to collect the loan, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the mortgage.

HELD: “Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid down the rule that a mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may pursue either of the two remedies, but not both.”

“Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in filing a civil action against the Danao spouses and subsequently resorting to the complaint of foreclosure proceedings, are not only a demonstration of the prohibited splitting up of a cause of action but also of the resulting vexation and oppression to the debtor.”

So those are examples of splitting a cause of action and illustrations of the rule that one cause of action may give rise to two or more remedies but it does not follow that you can avail of all those remedies. One is enough, otherwise, you will be splitting again you cause of action.

RULES IN DETERMINING THE SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION

Now, with respect to splitting a cause of action, you must familiarize yourselves on how this rule is applied to breach of contract and if there are several stipulations. Sometimes it is easy to determine whether there is one cause of action. Sometimes it is difficult. Sometimes you get confused, ‘ano ba ito? Isa lang ba ito o more than one?’

RULE #1 (General Rule):

A contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be violated only once, even if it contains several stipulations. (Quioque vs. Bautista, L-13159, Feb. 28, 1962)

EXAMPLE: Pauline enters into a contract with Nudj which contains 3 stipulations: (#1) that next month, Pauline will deliver to Nudj 100 sacks of rice; (#2) on the same date, Pauline will also deliver to Nudj 100 sacks of corn; and (#3) on the same date, Pauline will also deliver to Nudj 100 sacks of sugar. When the day arrived, nothing was delivered. So three stipulations were violated.

Q: How many causes of action does Nudj have against Pauline?

A: ONE. The contract is only one cause of action even if it contains several stipulations. The cause of action is not based on the number of paragraphs violated but on the contract itself.

RULE #2 (Exception to the General Rule):

A contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at different times gives rise to as many causes of action as there are violations. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)

EXAMPLE: A loan with a promissory note where the principal amount is payable in installment. There is one promissory note where the loan is P300,000. And then the first installment is payable this year (1997). And then the second installment is payable in 1998 and the third installment is payable in 1999 without any acceleration clause. So, there is only one contract of loan but the principal is payable in three installments at different times.

P100,000 for 1997 – one cause of action.

Q: Next year, he did not pay the second installment, can the creditor file another case?

A: YES, because this time it is the exception. Every installment is one cause of action even if there is only one note. Remember that they are to be performed at different times.

RULE #3 (Exception to the exception):

All obligations which have matured at the time of the suit must be integrated as one cause of action in one complaint, and those not so included would be barred. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)

EXAMPLE: In 1997, the debtor did not pay but the creditor did not file any case, pinabayaan lang niya. Then in 1998, the second installment was not also paid. So dalawa na. The total claim now is P200,000. So the creditor said, there are two unpaid installments—1997 and 1998! So dalawa na, I will file two cases.”

Q: Is the creditor correct?

A: He is wrong. Isahin mo na lang yan. When all the installment are already due and the creditor has not filed any case for the collection of the first installment, this time, when he files for collection of the unpaid second installment, everything must be integrated. So there should only be one complaint for P200,000 representing the first and second installments. If you do not file a claim for one, it is deemed barred.

So for example, if you will wait for the entire note to mature, you cannot apply rule 2. You should only file one action for P300,000 and you go back to the general rule.

RULE #4 (Exception to Rule #2):

However, when the failure to comply with one of several stipulations in a continuing contract constitutes a total breach, a single cause of action for damages, actual as well as prospective, arises from such breach. (Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp., 55 Phil. 226)

EXAMPLE: This year the first installment fell due. So the creditor demanded payment for the first installment from the debtor which the latter denied,! The signature in the note is not mine!”

Now, in that kind of statement, he is not only repudiating the first installment. He is repudiating the entire note. So under rule #4, the creditor can file a case for the entire loan of P300,000 because it has been repudiated. If you only file only one for the P100,000 which fell due, then next year, file na naman, it will be useless because he will still maintain the same position, “Wala akong utang sa iyo! Tigas ng ulo!” So you do not wait anymore for the 2nd and 3rd installments to fall due. You file only one case for the entire breach. There is a total breach for a continuing obligation and there is now only one cause of action for the entire promissory note