Amaro vs. Sumanguit

A complaint that alleges a public officer's refusal, without just cause, to perform his official duty states a cause of action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code, and vagueness or ambiguity in its allegations is not ground for dismissal but for a bill of particulars.

Cornelio Amaro and Jose Amaro, father and son, brought suit for damages against Ambrosio Sumanguit, the chief of police of the City of Silay, Negros Occidental. The action was predicated on Articles 21 and/or 27 of the Civil Code, which respectively govern damages for willful acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy, and damages for a public servant's refusal or neglect, without just cause, to perform his official duty. Both parties admitted in their briefs that these provisions were the statutory basis of the claim, although the complaint did not specifically allege them.

On October 5, 1958, Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot at near the city government building of Silay. The following day, Jose, together with his father Cornelio and their witnesses, went to the office of Ambrosio Sumanguit, the chief of police of Silay, to seek assistance in connection with the assault. Instead of receiving assistance, they were harassed and terrorized, as a result of which they gave up and renounced their right and interest in the prosecution of the crime.

Thereafter, upon advice of the City Mayor given to Sumanguit, an investigation of the crime was conducted. As a result, the city attorney of Silay was about to file or had already filed an information for illegal discharge of firearm against the assailant. Following the conclusion of the investigation, Sumanguit allegedly began harassing the plaintiffs in their daily work, ordering them through his police to appear in his office when he was absent, and was about to order their arrest to compel them to sign prepared affidavits exempting the police from any dereliction of duty in connection with the case against the perpetrator.

The Amaro父子 filed suit for damages in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Sumanguit moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, citing additionally that appellants had another recourse—filing their complaint directly with the city attorney or lodging an administrative charge against Sumanguit.

• Sufficiency of Complaint: Whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Articles 21 and/or 27 of the Civil Code.
• Proper Remedy for Defective Pleading: Whether vagueness, ambiguity, or indefiniteness in a complaint warrants dismissal or a bill of particulars.
• Exclusivity of Remedies: Whether the availability of other recourses—such as filing a complaint with the city attorney or an administrative charge—precludes an action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code.

• Sufficiency of Complaint: Yes. The allegations of the complaint constitute an actionable dereliction under Article 27 of the Civil Code, as they set forth the chief of police's refusal to provide assistance that it was his official duty to render.
• Proper Remedy for Defective Pleading: No, dismissal is improper. Vagueness, ambiguity, or indefiniteness in a complaint is not a ground for a motion to dismiss under Rule 8 but rather a ground for a bill of particulars under Rule 16.
• Exclusivity of Remedies: No. The existence of alternative recourses does not preclude an action for damages under Article 27 and does not justify dismissal of the complaint.

• Sufficiency of Complaint: The complaint alleged that Sumanguit, as chief of police, refused to give the plaintiffs assistance in connection with the assault on Jose Amaro, a duty incumbent upon him as an officer of the law. Although the phrase "harassed and terrorized" may be a conclusion of law improperly pleaded, the claim for relief rests not on that characterization but on the refusal to render assistance—an act of dereliction within the scope of Article 27. The requirement that the refusal be "without just cause" is implicit in the context of the allegations. The subsequent allegation that Sumanguit was about to order the arrest of the plaintiffs to make them sign exculpatory affidavits further reinforces the dereliction.

• Proper Remedy for Defective Pleading: The complaint, while admittedly imperfectly drafted and suffering from vagueness and generalization, nonetheless satisfies the requirement that there be a showing, by a statement of ultimate facts, that the plaintiff has a right and that such right has been violated by the defendant. Under the Rules of Court, ambiguity, indefiniteness, or uncertainty are not grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 8, but rather grounds for a bill of particulars under Rule 16. The defendant may also avail of the various methods of discovery to compel disclosure of more relevant facts. The real test of good pleading is whether the information given is sufficient to enable the party to plead and prepare for trial.

• Exclusivity of Remedies: The lower court's reliance on the availability of alternative recourses—filing a complaint directly with the city attorney or lodging an administrative charge against Sumanguit—was misplaced. The existence of such remedies does not preclude a separate action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code and therefore cannot serve as a basis for dismissing the complaint.

• Sufficiency of a Complaint — A complaint need not be perfectly drafted; it is sufficient if it states ultimate facts showing that the plaintiff has a right and that such right has been violated by the defendant. Vagueness, ambiguity, or indefiniteness are not grounds for dismissal under Rule 8 but are proper grounds for a bill of particulars under Rule 16. The real test of good pleading is whether the information given is sufficient to enable the party to plead and prepare for trial.

• Article 27, Civil Code — Damages for Refusal of Public Officer to Perform Duty — Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages. The availability of other remedies, such as administrative charges or direct filing of criminal complaints, does not preclude a separate civil action for damages under this provision.

• "An action should not be dismissed upon mere ambiguity, indefiniteness or uncertainty, for these are not grounds for a motion to dismiss, under Rule 8, but rather for a bill of particulars according to Rule 16." — This passage articulates the controlling rule on the distinction between grounds for dismissal and grounds for a bill of particulars, forming the core of the Court's procedural reasoning.

• "The fact, cited by the court below in the order subject to review, that appellants have another recourse . . . does not preclude this action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code and hence does not justify its dismissal." — This statement clarifies that Article 27 provides an independent and cumulative remedy, and that the existence of alternative avenues of relief cannot defeat a complaint predicated on that provision.

• Tiamco vs. Diaz, 75 Phil. 672 — Cited as authority for the proposition that under the Rules of Court, an action cannot be dismissed on the ground that the complaint is vague, ambiguous, or indefinite, because the defendant may instead seek a bill of particulars or use discovery procedures.

• De Leon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-15247, Feb. 28, 1962 — Cited to reinforce that if a complaint creates confusion as to the foundation of the cause of action, the proper remedy is to move for a more definite statement, not to seek dismissal.

• Article 21, Civil Code — Provides that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The complaint was predicated on this article as an alternative basis, though the Court's analysis centered on Article 27.

• Article 27, Civil Code — Provides that any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages. The Court held that the complaint's allegations of the chief of police's refusal to assist the plaintiffs constituted an actionable dereliction under this provision.

• Rule 8, Rules of Court — Governs motions to dismiss. The Court noted that vagueness, ambiguity, or indefiniteness are not enumerated grounds for dismissal under this rule.

• Rule 16, Rules of Court — Governs bills of particulars. The Court held that the proper remedy for a vague or indefinite complaint is a motion for a bill of particulars under this rule, not dismissal.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concurred.