Juan A. Peña, et al. vs. Manila Polo Club, Inc., et al.

[SEC CASE NO. 3155. July 9, 1987.] JUAN A. PEA, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . MANILA POLO CLUB, INC., ET AL. , respondents . [SEC CASE NO. 3157. July 9, 1987.] GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ, JR ., petitioner , vs. MANILA POLO CLUB, INC., ET AL ., respondents . O R D E R For resolution in the above-entitled cases are the corporate motions to dismiss based on the same and sole ground that the petitioner failed to state a cause of action, as non exist against the respondents. When the motion for dismissal is based on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, such fact can be determined only from the facts alleged in the complaint and from no other (Mindanao Realty Corp. vs. Kintanar, et al., L-17152, Nov. 30, 1962). With that ruling, all we have to do is to go over the allegations of the petition and determine whether a cause of action exists or not. A perusal of the petition will readily show that a cause of action exists against the respondents. Thus, the petition alleged, among others, denial of due process of the petitioners, that respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or have exercised a right or privilege in contravention of law and the Articles of Incorporation and the By-laws of Manila Polo Club. WHEREFORE, finding the motion to dismiss to be without merit, the same should be, as it is hereby DENIED. Let the application for a writ of preliminary injunction be, as it is hereby set for hearing on July 21, 1987, at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) FELIPE S. TONGCO Hearing Officer