You are on page 1of 6

RULE 15- MOTIONS

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

Secs. 4-5:

Exceptions to the Notice rule on motions:

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

(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;

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.

(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.

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.

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

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.

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


4. No legal capacity to sue
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

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 plaintiffs 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.

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.

Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites:

xxxx
(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.

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.

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

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

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

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;

cannot be denied.

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

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

(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.

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 preempt 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

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

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

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

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 courts 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 courts 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.

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

[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.

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

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

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

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

evidentiary issues closely related to the validity and/or existence of respondents 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

9. Paid, Waived, Abandoned, Extinguished


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

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.

Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial courts 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 courts 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.

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 plaintiffs ownership of the contested lot prior to the
issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendants 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

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 petitioners 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, petitioners 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 complainants rights after
he had knowledge of defendants 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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies


Earnest Efforts toward amicable settlement- Art. 151, Family Code
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
Payment of Docket Fee
Demand to vacate/payment of rental- Sec. 2, Rule 70
Alternative Dispute Resolution
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.

You might also like