GR 77356; (July, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 77356 ; July 15, 1991
TRAVEL WIDE ASSOCIATED SALES (PHILS.), INC., and TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DECISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION and MANUEL A. ALCUAZ, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Decision Systems Corporation and Manuel A. Alcuaz, Jr. filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Travel Wide Associated Sales (Phils.), Inc. and Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA). They alleged failure by the petitioners to fulfill obligations under “Travel Pass ’73 U.S.A.,” a pre-paid travel package for airfare and hotel accommodations. Petitioners filed motions to dismiss the original and amended complaints for failure to state a cause of action, which were denied. In their joint answer, petitioners raised the special defense that they were not real parties-in-interest, having acted merely as agents for a disclosed principal, Tour Services, Inc. The trial court granted their motion for a preliminary hearing on this special defense.
After the preliminary hearing, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. It found that Travel Wide was TWA’s general agent and TWA was an agent for Tour Services, Inc., concluding neither was a real party-in-interest against whom a cause of action could lie. The Court of Appeals reversed this order of dismissal. It held that the defense of not being a real party-in-interest was waived for not being included in the earlier motions to dismiss, pursuant to the omnibus motion rule.
ISSUE
Whether the defense of not being a real party-in-interest is waived if not raised in a motion to dismiss, and whether such a defense is a proper ground for dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ result but correcting its reasoning. The Court clarified that the defense of not being a real party-in-interest is intrinsically linked to the ground of failure to state a cause of action. A complaint fails to state a cause of action if it is not brought against the real party-in-interest. Under Rule 9, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, the defense of failure to state a cause of action is an exception to the omnibus motion rule; it is not deemed waived if not pleaded in a motion to dismiss and can be raised later, even at trial.
Thus, the petitioners did not waive the defense. However, the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss based on this defense after a preliminary hearing. The Court found the petitioners were real parties-in-interest as defendants. As alleged promoters and active participants in the travel package, they could potentially be held liable, either as principals or under Article 1909 of the Civil Code for an agent’s negligence. The existence of a cause of action required a full trial on the merits to examine the evidence, including the travel brochure’s terms and the parties’ roles. The case was remanded for further proceedings.