Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Order Denying Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    276 views1 page
    This order denies the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Kobe Bryant against Muhammad Ali Automobile Repair Shop. The plaintiff sued for rescission of contract and damages, arguing the repair shop failed to properly inspect and repair issues with his car. While the defendant claimed it fulfilled its obligations, the court found the admissions of both parties show the repair shop breached its duty to identify all defects, giving the plaintiff a valid cause of action. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied.

    Original Description:

    Format

    Original Title

    Order denying motion to dismiss

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This order denies the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Kobe Bryant against Muhammad Ali Automobile Repair Shop. The plaintiff sued for rescission of contract and damages, arguing the repair shop failed to properly inspect and repair issues with his car. While the defendant claimed it fulfilled its obligations, the court found the admissions of both parties show the repair shop breached its duty to identify all defects, giving the plaintiff a valid cause of action. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    276 views1 page

    Order Denying Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    This order denies the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Kobe Bryant against Muhammad Ali Automobile Repair Shop. The plaintiff sued for rescission of contract and damages, arguing the repair shop failed to properly inspect and repair issues with his car. While the defendant claimed it fulfilled its obligations, the court found the admissions of both parties show the repair shop breached its duty to identify all defects, giving the plaintiff a valid cause of action. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT


    NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
    PASIG, BRANCH 121

    KOBE BRYANT,
    Plaintiff,
    Civil Case No. 11691050
    - versus - For: Rescission of Contract with
    Damages

    MUHAMMAD ALI AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SHOP,


    Defendant.
    x ----------------------------------- x

    ORDER

    This resolves defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the complaint filed by the Plaintiff for
    Rescission of Contract with Damages.

    In their motion, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had no cause of action in filing the
    complaint because the former did his due diligence in making sure that he performed his
    obligation by fixing the chassis and engine of the said plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant also
    argues that under the New Civil Code, a contract may only be rescinded when the other party has
    failed to comply with his obligation.

    The Court has resolved to deny defendant’s motion.

    Based on the admissions made by the parties and in their respective pleadings, it can be gleaned
    that the plaintiff has a clear cause of action when the defendant failed to perform his duty to
    check all the defects of the car of the plaintiff when the latter approached the services of the
    former to check if his car has any damages. Consequently, when the plaintiff found out that there
    were other damages in his car, allegedly caused by the defendant, there was a clear breach of
    contract between the two parties.

    From the foregoing arguments raised by herein defendant and the same to be of no merit, the
    court opines to deny the instant Motion.

    WHEREFORE, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.


    SO ORDERED.

    20 June, 2020

    HON. BENJAMIN HOGAN


    Presiding Judge

    You might also like