TOMAS SABANGAN (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER RAMONA APULI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, NATIONAL TREASURER OF THE P…

The only issue posed by the plaintiff-appellant is whether or not
the dismissal of his complaint upon motion of the defendant-appellee
Manila Railroad Company was proper on the ground
stated by the trial court in the order appealed from.

The complaint enumerates nine (9) causes of action after the
common averment that the plaintiff Tomas Sabangan is
the child of Ramona Apuli, who is representing him,
and the deceased Perfecto Sabangan, who was an
employee of the railroad company from 1925 up death on April 12, 1962. 
The first cause of action alleges that the deceased was entitled to
differential pay from the said company in the sum of P1,185.00,
which the latter failed to pay in spite of repeated demands, and that the
delivery of such pay or any portion thereof to the defendants Enrique Sabangan, Norma Sabangan and Mariang Inhik @ Maria Sabangan was or would be null and void, they not being
entitled thereto.  The second cause of
action alleges that the same deceased, as such employee, was entitled to backpay from the National Government, through the defendant
National Treasurer, in the amount of P600.00. 
The third cause of action seeks recovery of overtime pay from the
railroad company in the amount of P2,370.00; the
fourth, of residential and quarter allowances in the amount of  P3,000.00; the fifth, of Christmas bonuses
aggregating P250.00; and the sixth, of a gratuity from the defendant Government
Service Insurance System in the sum of P6,000.00.  The seventh and eighth causes of action
simply aver that the defendant Maria Sabangan is not
the child of the de­ceased Perfecto Sabangan and
therefore has no successional rights insofar as the
amounts claimed are concerned, and that any payment made or about to be made to
the said defendant or to the defendants Enrique Sabangan
and Norma Sabangan were or would be null and
void.  The ninth and last cause of action
makes reference to the costs and other expenses of litigation, including
attorney’s fees, sought to be recovered by the plaintiff.

The Manila Railroad Company moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the facts alleged did not constitute a cause or causes of action,
and that in any event the right to claim the sums mentioned belonged to the estate
of the decedent and not to the plaintiff. 
On January 27, 1962
the motion was called for hearing, at which no one appeared to interpose an
opposition.  On the same day the trial
court issued its order of dismissal on the ground that “the complaint fails
to show the authority upon which plaintiff bases his claim for the recovery of
the sum of money sought to be recovered… whether the plaintiff is the
legitimate son and only forced heir of the decedent… (and that) there could
be other heir of the deceased Perfecto Sabangan who
should not be precluded as party-plaintiff.”

A motion for reconsideration was filed, but the same was denied
in a subsequent order dated March 10,
1962.  According to the
plaintiff he received a copy of the motion to dismiss only on January 26, 1962,
and filed by mail a written opposition thereto; but it was received in Court
only on the following February 5, several days after the order of dismissal was
issued.  The Court anyway ruled in its
order of denial that the same was based on the merits of the motion for
dismissal and not on the failure of the plaintiff to file his opposition on
time.

There can be no question that the complaint is very unskillfully
drafted.  But it is equally
unquestionable that it asserts certain rights against the defendants,
particularly the Manila Railroad Company, and asserts likewise that the demands
for such rights had not been complied with.

The complaint may be deficient in details with respect to the
factual basis of each and every item claimed, but the deficiency, in our
opinion, is not such as to amount to a failure to state a cause of action; and
if necessary, could be cured by means of a motion for a bill of particulars so
as to enable the defendants to properly frame their responsive pleadings.

With reference to the specific ground on which the order of
dismissal was predicated, there is a sufficient averment of the authority on
which the plaintiff was pursuing his claim, namely, that he is the son of the
deceased Perfecto Sabangan and therefore entitled to successional rights from him.

The order appealed from is therefore set aside, and the case
remanded for further proceeding, with costs against the defendant-appellee Manila Railroad Company.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.