RULE 15- MOTIONS

Secs. 4-5:

Anama v. Phil. Savings Bank , G.R. No. 187021, January 25, 2012

Elementary is the rule that every motion must contain the mandatory requirements of notice and hearing and that there must be proof of service thereof. The Court has consistently held that a motion that fails to comply with the above requirements is considered a worthless piece of paper which should not be acted upon. The rule, however, is not absolute. There are motions that can be acted upon by the court ex parte if these would not cause prejudice to the other party. They are not strictly covered by the rigid requirement of the rules on notice and hearing of motions.

Absence of such advance notice to the judgment debtor does not constitute an infringement of the constitutional guarantee of due process.

 However, the established rules of our system of jurisprudence do

not require that a defendant who has been granted an opportunity to be heard and has had his day in court should, after a judgment has been rendered against him, have a further notice and hearing before supplemental proceedings are taken to reach his property in satisfaction of the judgment. Thus, in the absence of a statutory requirement, it is not essential that he be given notice before the issuance of an execution against his tangible property; after the rendition of the judgment he must take "notice of what will follow," no further notice being "necessary to advance justice." 

The test is the presence of opportunity to be heard, as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based.

We have consistently held that a motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper, which the Clerk of Court has no right to receive and the trial court has no authority to act upon. Service of a copy of a motion containing a notice of the time and the place of hearing of that motion is a mandatory requirement, and the failure of movants to comply with these requirements renders their motions fatally defective. However, there are exceptions to the strict application of this rule. These exceptions are: (1) where a rigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained therein; (2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; (3) where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court; and (4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not

commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

Tan v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 130314, September 22, 1998

Exceptions to the Notice rule on motions:

(1) where a rigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained therein; 

(2) where the interest of substantial justice will be served; 

(3) where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court; and

(4) where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.  Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the case at bar falls under any of these exceptions.

Sec. 8:

Tung Ho Steel v. Ting Guan , G.R. No. 182153, April 7, 2014

As a basic principle, courts look with disfavor on piecemeal arguments in motions filed by the parties. Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available.25 The purpose of this rule is to obviate multiplicity of motions and to discourage dilatory motions and pleadings. Party litigants should not be allowed to reiterate identical motions, speculating on the possible change of opinion of the courts or of the judges thereof.

RULE 16- MOTION TO DISMISS

Sec. 1:

Obando v. Figueras , G.R. No. 134854, January 18, 2000

Gen Rule: The Rules provide that a motion to dismiss may be submitted only before the filing of a responsive pleading. (ie. On the ground of improper venue)

Exceptions: Even after an answer has been filed, the Court has allowed a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

(1) lack of jurisdiction,

(2) litis pendentia

(3) lack of cause of action, and

(4) discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal.

Except for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction, the grounds under Section 1 of Rule 16 may be waived. If a particular ground for dismissal is not raised or if no motion to dismiss is filed at all within the reglementary period, it is generally considered waived under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules.

1. No jurisdiction over defendant

Planters Development Bank v. Chandumal , G.R. No. 195619, September 5, 2012

The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through service of summons or through voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority. If a defendant has not been properly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over its person, and a judgment rendered against it is null and void.

Carandang v. Heirs of de Guzman , G.R. No. 160347, November 29, 2006

However, unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which is conferred by law and is not subject to the discretion of the parties, jurisdiction over the person of the parties to the case may be waived either expressly or impliedly. Implied waiver comes in the form of either voluntary appearance or a failure to object.

Thus, lack of jurisdiction over the person, being subject to waiver, is a personal defense which can only be asserted by the party who can thereby waive it by silence.

2. No jurisdiction over the subject matter

Allied Domecq Phil. v. Hon. Villon , G.R. No. 156264, September 30, 2004

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists.] Basic is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the cause or causes of action as alleged in the complaint. But where the actual issues are evident from the records of the case, then jurisdiction over the subject matter need not depend upon the literal averments in the complaint, but on the law as applied to established facts.

Republic v. Bantigue Point Development , G.R. No. 162322, March 14, 2012

The rule is settled that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law. It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Consequently, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal.

3. Improper Venue

Universal Robina v. Lim , G.R. No. 154338, October 5, 2007

Implicit from Sec. 1, Rule 9 is that improper venue not impleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived. Thus, a court may not dismiss an action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings.

4. No legal capacity to sue

Evangelista v. Santiago , G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005

Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his civil rights, or does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character or representation he claims. On the other hand, a case is dismissible for lack of personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, hence grounded on failure to state a cause of action. The term "lack of capacity to sue" should not be confused with the term "lack of personality to sue." While the former refers to a plaintiff’s general disability to sue, such as on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general disqualifications of a party, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party- in-interest. Correspondingly, the first can be a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue; whereas the second can be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no cause of action.

B. Van Zuiden v. GTVL Manufacturing , G.R. No. 147905, May 28, 2007

The law is clear. An unlicensed foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines cannot sue before Philippine courts. On the other hand, an unlicensed foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines can sue before Philippine courts.

5. Litis Pendentia

Spouses Marasigan v. Chevron, G.R. No. 184015, February 8, 2012

Litis pendentia is a Latin term, which literally means "a pending suit" and is variously referred to in

some decisions as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a ground for the dismissal of a civil action, it refers to

the situation where two actions are pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, so that one of

them becomes unnecessary and vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits.

         

 Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites:

(1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions;

(2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and

(3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that

may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the

other case.

Quito v. Stop & Save Corp. , G.R. No. 186657, June 11, 2014

In other words, the issue of physical possession in the action for unlawful detainer cannot be

identical with the issues of ownership and validity of contract in the action for annulment. From these

essential differences, the lack of required identity in the causes of action for litis pendentia to exist

cannot be denied.

Benavidez v. Salvador , G.R. No. 173331, December 11, 2013

There is no hard and fast rule in determining which of the actions should be abated

on the ground of litis pendentia, but through time, the Supreme Court has endeavored to

lay down certain criteria to guide lower courts faced with this legal dilemma. As a rule,

preference is given to the first action filed to be retained. This is in accordance with the

maxim Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure. There are, however, limitations to this rule.

Hence, the first action may be abated if it was filed merely to pre-empt the later action

or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal. Thus, the bona fides or good

faith of the parties is a crucial element. A later case shall not be abated if not brought to

harass or vex; and the first case can be abated if it is merely an anticipatory action or,

more appropriately, an anticipatory defense against an expected suit – a clever move to

steal the march from the aggrieved party.   

Another exception to the priority in time rule is the criterion of the more appropriate

action. Thus, an action, although filed later, shall not be dismissed if it is the more

appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties.

xxxx

Under this established jurisprudence on litis pendentia, the following considerations predominate in the ascending order of importance in determining which action should prevail: (1) the date of filing, with preference generally given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) whether the action sought to be dismissed was filed merely to preempt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal; and (3) whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties.

6. Res Judicata

Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte , G.R. No. 159691, June 13, 2013

Res judicata exists when as between the action sought to be dismissed and the other action these elements are present, namely;

(1) the former judgment must be final;

(2) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties;

(3) the former judgment must be a judgment on the merits; and

(4) there must be between the first and subsequent actions

(i) identity of parties or at least such as representing the same interest in both actions;

(ii) identity of subject matter, or of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and,

(iii) identity of causes of action in both actions such that any judgment that may be rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.

Spouses Antonio v. Sayman , G.R. No. 149624, September 29, 2010

 The principle of res judicata is applicable by way of (1) “bar by prior judgment” and (2) “conclusiveness of judgment.” This Court had occasion to explain the difference between these two aspects of res judicata as follows: 

There is “bar by prior judgment” when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes

an absolute bar to the second action. Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of action before the same or other tribunal.  

But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as “conclusiveness of judgment.” Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.[9] 

           Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction .[10]  The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action.[11] Thus, only the identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.

7. Prescription/Statute of Limitations

Marquez v. Baldoz , G.R. No. 143779, April 4, 2003

As required by Section 3, Rule 16, the trial court’s Order also explains at length the basis for its finding that in his complaint, plaintiff has shown a sufficient cause of action. Corollary to its discussion on this issue, the trial court also touched on the issue on prescription with a pronouncement that such issue is better threshed after a full-blown trial on the merits.  The trial court’s reasoning, in our view, sufficiently explained the reason for dismissing the motion to dismiss. It satisfactorily served the purpose behind the new Rules of Court as earlier explained.

[A]n allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed.

Notwithstanding the jurisprudence which states that prescription may be effectively pleaded in a motion to dismiss if the complaint shows on its face that the action had already prescribed at the time it was filed, We believe, however, that there is no sufficient and convincing showing that prescription as regards the subject property has set in already. The reason is simple: the court a quo noted on the face of the complaint in Civil Case No. 9-97 that Gregorio Leonor, father of herein petitioners, was the tenant of the parents of private respondent over the subject property. Obviously, perusing the complaint with an allegation that the subject

property was a tenanted property, the contention of petitioners in establishing an uninterrupted adverse possession for more than thirty (30) years seems implausible. Besides, possession is not a definitive proof of ownership, nor is non-possession inconsistent therewith.

8. States no cause of action

Lucas v. Lucas , G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011

A complaint states a cause of action when it contains the following elements: (1) the legal right of plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right.

In a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations made in the complaint to constitute a cause of action and not whether those allegations of fact are true, for said motion must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.

Lazaro v. Brewmaster , G.R. No. 182779, August 23, 2010

The test of sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the petition or complaint.[18] To determine whether the complaint states a cause of action, all documents attached thereto may, in fact, be considered, particularly when referred to in the complaint.[19] We emphasize, however, that the inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations in the complaint.[20] Thus, consideration of the annexed documents should only be taken in the context of ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

NM Rothschild v. Lepanto , G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011

As correctly ruled by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the alleged absence of a cause of

action (as opposed to the failure to state a cause of action), the alleged estoppel on the part of petitioner, and the

argument that respondent is in pari delicto in the execution of the challenged contracts, are not grounds in a

Motion to Dismiss as enumerated in Section 1, Rule 16[17] of the Rules of Court. Rather, such defenses raise

evidentiary issues closely related to the validity and/or existence of respondent’s alleged cause of action and should

therefore be threshed out during the trial.

 

As regards the allegation of failure to state a cause of action, while the same is usually available as a

ground in a Motion to Dismiss, said ground cannot be ruled upon in the present Petition without going into the

very merits of the main case.

 

It is basic that “[a] cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of

another.”[18]  Its elements are the following: (1) a right existing in favor of the plaintiff, (2) a duty on the part of the

defendant to respect the plaintiff's right, and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation of such right.

[19]  We have held that to sustain a Motion to Dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the

claim for relief does not exist and not only that the claim was defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite or

uncertain.

Evangelista v. Santiago , G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005

It is already well-settled by now that, in a motion to dismiss a complaint based on lack of cause of action, the question submitted to the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations of fact made in the complaint to constitute a cause of action, and not on whether these allegations of fact are true, for said motion must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint; that the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Stated otherwise, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear in the face of the complaint in order to sustain a dismissal on this ground, for in the determination of whether or not a complaint states a cause of action, only the facts alleged therein and no other matter may be considered, and the court may not inquire into the truth of the allegations, and find them to be false before a hearing is had on the merits of the case; and it is improper to inject in the allegations of the complaint facts not alleged or proved, and use these as basis for said motion.

” a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff’s ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant’s fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefore is consequently void ab initio. The real party-in-interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant…”

9. Paid, Waived, Abandoned, Extinguished

Urethane v. Ong , G.R. No. 164632, October 29, 2008

Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. [18] The appropriate course of action of the movant in such event is to file an answer[19] and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss.[20] If, later, the decision of the trial judge is adverse, the movant may then elevate on appeal the same issues raised in the motion.[21]

 The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the

motion.[22] This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[23] Further, the abuse of the court’s discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by, or to act at all in contemplation of, law.

To elucidate, the grounds raised in the motion are: (1) bar by the statute of limitations or by laches; and (2) waiver, abandonment or extinguishment of claim. These grounds are, however, based on petitioner’s assertion that respondents cannot invoke “lack of jurisdiction over their persons” as a ground in the petition for annulment of judgment. This is a conclusion of law that cannot be used as the foundation of the motion to dismiss. The assertion still needs to be proven or disproven by the parties and resolved by the trial court. Indeed, petitioner’s allegations in the motion that respondents actually received the summons and that one of them even voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the MeTC, are matters of evidence that need to be threshed out in the trial. True or not, respondents must be given ample opportunity to prove their claim, and the petitioner to debunk the same.

Fernando v. Acuna , G.R. No. 161030, September 14, 2011

Laches means the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by observance of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert his right either has abandoned or declined to assert it. Laches thus operates as a bar in equity.[38] The essential elements of laches are: (a) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of; (b) delay in asserting complainant’s rights after he had knowledge of defendant’s acts and after he has had the opportunity to sue; (c) lack of knowledge or notice by defendant that the complainant will assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (d) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event the relief is accorded to the complainant.

10. Failure to comply with condition precedent

a) Exhaustion of Administrative Remediesb) Earnest Efforts toward amicable settlement- Art. 151, Family Codec) Certification of Non-Forum Shoppingd) Payment of Docket Feee) Demand to vacate/payment of rental- Sec. 2, Rule 70f) Alternative Dispute Resolution

g) Referral to KatarungangPambarangay

Sec. 5. Effect of dismissal:

NM Rothschild v. Lepanto , G.R. No. 175799, November 28, 2011

Evidently, by seeking affirmative relief other than dismissal of the case, respondents manifested their voluntary submission to the court's jurisdiction. It is well-settled that the active participation of a party in the proceedings is tantamount to an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and will bar said party from later on impugning the court's jurisdiction.