G.R. No. L-23233 September 28, 1967
LUIS ENGUERRA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTONIO DOLOSA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Luis Enguerra was the chief baker for the De Lux Bakery and Grocery, owned by defendant Antonio Dolosa, from June 18, 1959, to October 8, 1961. On December 14, 1961, Enguerra filed a complaint in the municipal court of Sorsogon against Dolosa to recover P4,056.00 for unpaid overtime services rendered during that period. After the municipal court dismissed the complaint, Enguerra appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 1800. Subsequently, on January 24, 1963, Enguerra filed another complaint with the same CFI against Dolosa, docketed as Civil Case No. 1804, seeking to recover termination pay, underpayment of wages, compensatory damages for unearned income from unjustified dismissal, compensatory damages for unpaid overtime, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Dolosa was granted a 30-day extension to answer, counted from February 6, 1963. On March 8, 1963, Dolosa filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 1804 on the grounds of litis pendentia (another action pending between the same parties for the same cause) and splitting a cause of action, referencing the pending Civil Case No. 1800. Enguerra moved to have Dolosa declared in default, arguing the motion to dismiss was filed one day late and was merely pro forma. The CFI granted the motion to dismiss and denied the motion to declare Dolosa in default. Enguerra appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CFI erred in not declaring Dolosa in default.
2. Whether the CFI erred in dismissing Civil Case No. 1804.

RULING

1. No, the CFI did not err in not declaring Dolosa in default. The Supreme Court applied the “exclude-the-first and include-the-last day” method for computing time periods under Rule 28 of the Rules of Court. The 30-day extension granted on February 6, 1963, excluded February 6 and included March 8, 1963, making the motion to dismiss filed on March 8 timely. Furthermore, the motion to dismiss was not pro forma because it explicitly stated the legal grounds (litis pendentia and splitting a cause of action) and specified the concrete facts, including the title and number of the pending case (Civil Case No. 1800). A non-pro forma motion suspends the period for filing an answer.
2. No, the CFI did not err in dismissing Civil Case No. 1804. The Supreme Court held that Civil Case No. 1800 and Civil Case No. 1804 involved the same cause of action between the same parties. The cause of action in both cases sprang from the same breach of the contract of employment covering Enguerra’s service from June 18, 1959, to October 8, 1961. The various claims (underpayment of wages, nonpayment of overtime, termination pay, and damages) were merely different aspects or effects of that single breach. The rule against splitting a cause of action requires a plaintiff to include all claims arising from the same cause in one complaint. Enguerra, by including multiple claims under one cause of action in his own complaint for Case No. 1804, was in estoppel to deny that the cause was the same. Additionally, damages incidental to a cause of action cannot be made the subject of an independent suit. Therefore, the dismissal was proper. The order of the CFI was affirmed.