Practice question
A premature suit lacked an existing cause when filed. The debt later matures, and the plaintiff says evidence of maturity necessarily cures the defect because it was received during trial. Which is correct under Swagman’s operative ruling?
- Later accrual does not itself cure the original absence of a cause.
- The quoted lower-court reasoning necessarily controls after reversal.
- Any later event automatically validates every premature complaint.
- The filing date becomes the date of the last exhibit.
- The court must ignore whether any breach existed at commencement.
Legal references
- Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161135, April 8, 2005, main decision, existing breach and cause at commencement: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_161135_2005.html
- 2019 Amendments to Civil Procedure, Rules 2-4 and relevant Rule 10 Section 3, current operative provisions: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.