Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Procedure, Rendering The Complaint Fatally Defective and Thus Dismissible

    Uploaded by

    Honey Joy MB
    The petitioners filed two motions to dismiss - the first alleging the complaint did not state a cause of action, and the second alleging defects in the verification and certification. However, as a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion that must raise all available objections, by failing to include the defective verification and certification ground in their first motion, petitioners waived this objection under the rules. The Court affirmed the lower courts' denial of the second motion to dismiss on this basis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Procedure, Rendering The Complaint Fatally Defective and Thus Dismissible

    Uploaded by

    Honey Joy MB
    26 views2 pages
    The petitioners filed two motions to dismiss - the first alleging the complaint did not state a cause of action, and the second alleging defects in the verification and certification. However, as a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion that must raise all available objections, by failing to include the defective verification and certification ground in their first motion, petitioners waived this objection under the rules. The Court affirmed the lower courts' denial of the second motion to dismiss on this basis.

    Original Description:

    Rem 1

    Original Title

    De Guzman v Ochoa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners filed two motions to dismiss - the first alleging the complaint did not state a cause of action, and the second alleging defects in the verification and certification. However, as a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion that must raise all available objections, by failing to include the defective verification and certification ground in their first motion, petitioners waived this objection under the rules. The Court affirmed the lower courts' denial of the second motion to dismiss on this basis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views2 pages

    Procedure, Rendering The Complaint Fatally Defective and Thus Dismissible

    Uploaded by

    Honey Joy MB
    The petitioners filed two motions to dismiss - the first alleging the complaint did not state a cause of action, and the second alleging defects in the verification and certification. However, as a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion that must raise all available objections, by failing to include the defective verification and certification ground in their first motion, petitioners waived this objection under the rules. The Court affirmed the lower courts' denial of the second motion to dismiss on this basis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Doctrine: A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the complaint.

    For this
    reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion, must raise and include all objections available at the
    time of the filing of the motion because under Section 8, "all objections not so included shall be deemed waived."

    [G.R. No. 169292, April 13, 2011] 

    SPOUSES FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, JR. AND AMPARO O. DE GUZMAN, PETITIONERS, VS.


    CESAR OCHOA AND SYLVIA A. OCHOA, REPRESENTED BY ARACELI S. AZORES, AS THEIR
    ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS.

    DECISION

    MENDOZA, J.:

    On March 25, 2002, respondent spouses Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia Ochoa, through respondent Araceli Azores,
    ostensibly acting as attorney-in-fact, commenced in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City an action seeking
    the annulment of contract of mortgage, foreclosure sale, certificate of sale and damages. 

     the petitioners, as defendants in Civil Case No. 68896, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the sole ground that the
    complaint did not state a cause of action. The petitioners' motion to dismiss was formally opposed by the private
    respondents. 

    On December 16, 2002, the respondent RTC Judge denied petitioners' motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2003, the
    petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss,alleging that the certification against forum shopping attached to
    the complaint was not executed by the principal parties (plaintiffs) in violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7, 1997 Rules of Civil
    Procedure, rendering the complaint fatally defective and thus dismissible.

    Still, it was denied. Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the order of denial to the CA via a petition for certiorari
    contending that the RTC should have dismissed the complaint motu proprio since it was fatally defective—the
    verification and CAFS was not signed by the real parties in interest but by their attorney-in-fact.

    the CA denied the petition for lack' of merit. The CA, in its decision, agreed with the RTC that following the
    omnibus motion rule, the defects of the complaint pointed out by the petitioners were deemed waived when they
    failed to raise it in their first motion to dismiss.

    Issue: Whether or not the allegation of defective Verification and CAFS was deemed waived when it was not raised
    in the first motion to dismiss.

    Held: Yes, it was.

    Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court defines an omnibus motion as a motion attacking a pleading, judgment or
    proceeding. A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the complaint. For this
    reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion, must raise and include all objections available at the
    time of the filing of the motion because under Section 8, "all objections not so included shall be deemed waived."
    As inferred from the provision, only the following defenses under Section 1, Rule 9, are excepted from its
    application: [a] lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; [b] there is another action pending between the same
    parties for the same cause (litis pendentia); [c] the action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata); and [d] the
    action is barred by the statute of limitations or prescription. 

    In the case at bench, the petitioners raised the ground of defective verification and certification of forum shopping
    only when they filed their second motion to dismiss, despite the fact that this ground was existent and available to
    them at the time of the filing of their first motion to dismiss. Absent any justifiable reason to explain this fatal
    omission, the ground of defective verification and certification of forum shopping was deemed waived and could no
    longer be questioned by the petitioners in their second motion to dismiss.

    You might also like