G.R. No. L-24238 November 28, 1980
JOSE SANTOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. LORENZO J. LIWAG, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On June 8, 1964, plaintiff-appellant Jose Santos filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking the annulment of three specific documents (Annexes A, B, and C). The complaint alleged that these documents were executed by the defendant through “misrepresentations, machination, false pretenses, threats, and other fraudulent means.” Santos also prayed for damages and costs.
The defendant, Lorenzo J. Liwag, filed a motion on July 4, 1964, asking the court to order the plaintiff to submit a more definite statement or a bill of particulars. Liwag argued that the allegations in the complaint were indefinite, uncertain, and conflicting, preventing him from preparing an intelligent and proper responsive pleading. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending his complaint already contained sufficient ultimate facts and that the defendant’s request sought evidentiary details. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and directed the plaintiff to submit the bill of particulars.

ISSUE

Did the trial court commit a reversible error in dismissing the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to submit the ordered bill of particulars?

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The allowance of a motion for a bill of particulars rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Its ruling on such a matter will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a palpable abuse of that discretion or a clearly erroneous order. In this case, the complaint was imperfectly drawn, suffering from vagueness and over-generalization.
The action was for annulment based on specific grounds like deceit and fraud. However, such terms are conclusions of law. A complaint must state the specific facts and circumstances from which such conclusions can be inferred. The appellant’s complaint merely made a general averment that the documents were executed through fraudulent means without stating the particular facts constituting that fraud. Therefore, the defendant was unable to properly prepare his answer, and the issues were not clarified for the court’s expeditious disposition of the case.
Consequently, the trial court properly granted the motion for a bill of particulars. When the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s lawful order, dismissal of the complaint under the Rules of Court was correct. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the appealed judgment.