SECTION 1 - Grounds.—Within the time for but before filing the
answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
(b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
(c) That venue is improperly laid;
(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
(e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause;
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations;
(g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
(h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and
(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with. (1a)
NATURE Types of Dismissal of Action
1. Motion to dismiss before Answer (Rule 16) 2. Motion to dismiss under Rule 17
Upon notice by plaintiff; Upon motion by plaintiff; or Due to fault of plaintiff
3. Motion to dismiss called a demurrer to evidence after plaintiff has completed presentation of his evidence under Rule 33
4. Dismissal of an appeal
Note: A motion to dismiss under this Rule differs from a motion to dismiss under Rule 33 on demurrer to evidence:
MOTION TO DISMISS DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE Grounded on preliminary
objections Based on insufficiency of evidence May be filed by any defending
party against whom a claim is asserted in the action
May be filed only by the defendant against the complaint of the plaintiff Should be filed within the time
for but prior to the filing of the answer of the defending party to the pleading asserting the
claim against him
May be filed for the dismissal of the case only after the plaintiff has completed the presentation
of his evidence If denied, defendant must file
an answer, or else he may be declared in default
If denied, defendant may present evidence If granted, plaintiff may appeal
or if subsequent case is not barred, he may re-file the case
If granted, plaintiff appeals and the order of dismissal is reversed, defendant loses his
right to present evidence
Period to file: Within the time for, but before filing of, the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim
Exceptions:
For special reasons which may be allowed even after trial has begun, a motion to dismiss may be filed The court has allowed the filing of a motion to dismiss
where the evidence that would constitute a ground for dismissal was discovered during trial
Note: Complaints cannot be dismissed on ground not alleged in a motion to dismiss
- The motion may be based on only one of the grounds enumerated in Sec. 1, Rule 16
- But when it appears from the pleadings or evidence on record that:
1. The court has no jurisdiction,
2. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause
3. The action is barred by prior judgment or the statute of limitations
- In the forgoing, the court shall dismiss the claim
A motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint
- Such admission is only limited to all material and relevant facts which are well pleaded in the complaint
- It does not admit to the following:
1. The truth of mere epithets charging fraud, nor allegations of legal conclusions, erroneous statements of law
2. Inferences or conclusions drawn from such facts, even if alleged in the complaint
3. Inferences or conclusions from facts not stated 4. To matters of evidence, surplusage or irrelevant
matters
5. Allegations of fact the falsity of which is subject to judicial notice
6. Facts legally impossible; facts inadmissible in evidence; facts which do not appear by record; documents not include in the pleadings
FIRST GROUND
NO JURISDICTIOON OVER THE PERSON OF DEFENDING PARTY See earlier rules on Jurisdiction
The jurisdictional grounds which may be invoked are confined to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party and the subject-matter of the claim.
Note also that the term used is not limited to the defendant but applies to all defending parties against whom are claims are asserted through other initiatory pleadings
- Jurisdiction is obtained over the original defendant by service of summons
- Jurisdiction is obtained over other defending parties by service of the pleading containing the claim
Discussion of the Court in La Naval Drug Corp. v. CA, et al.
Court held that while lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant may be duly and seasonably raised, his voluntary appearance in court without qualification is a waiver of such defense.
- Even if he challenges the jurisdiction of the court over his person and invokes other grounds for the dismissal of the action under Rule 16, he is not deemed to be in estoppel or
138
to have waived his objection to jurisdiction over his person
- The defendant may after all invoke his objections alternatively, hence he would not thereby be said to inconsistently challenge the jurisdiction of the court and at the same time calls it to exercise its jurisdiction
a. The first questions the jurisdiction over his person b. The second, assuming the court has jurisdiction over
his person, impugns its jurisdiction over other aspects of the case
Note also that Sec. 20, Rule 14 makes a categorical statement that the inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed voluntary appearance on his part.
SECOND GROUND
NO JURISICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER See earlier rules on Jurisdiction
Note that the rule refers to the subject matter of each particular claim and not only to that of the suit. So other initiatory pleadings included.
Jurisdiction over the subject-matter
- Is determined by the allegations in the complaint
- Regardless of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all of the claims asserted therein
- Defenses asserted in answer of motion to dismiss are not to be considered for this purpose (Magay v. Estandian) Note: Where a party invokes the jurisdiction of a court to obtain affirmative relief and fails, he cannot thereafter repudiate such jurisdiction. While the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, he is estopped as it is tantamount to speculating on the fortunes of litigation (Crisostomo, et al. v. CA)
Note: Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be invoked as a defense at any stage of the action, even if no such objection was raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, and it may be so claimed even after the trial had commenced (Ker & Co. v. CTA)
THIRD GROUND IMPROPER VENUE See earlier rules on Venue
Jurisprudence:
1. Where a motion to dismiss for improper venue is erroneously denied, the remedy is prohibition (Enriquez
v. Macadaeg)
2. Where the plaintiffs filed the action in a court of improper venue and thereafter submitted to its jurisdiction, the issue of venue was thereby waived and they are in estoppel to repudiate or question the proceedings in said court (Vda. De Suan, et al. v. Cusi, et al.)
3. Objection to venue is also impliedly waived where the party enters into trial, cross-examines the witnesses of the adverse party and adduces evidence (Paper Industries
Corp of the Philippines v. Samson et al.)
FOURTH GROUND
PLAINTIFF HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE
This refers to the lack of necessary qualifications to appear in the case because one is not in full exercise of his civil rights.
E.g. Minority, insanity, coverture, lack of juridical personality, incompetence, civil interdiction, lack of license to operate (in case of foreign corporations)
Note: Where the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, the ground for the motion to dismiss is lack of cause of action.
Jurisprudence
1. Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is either not in the exercise of his civil rights or does not have the character or representation that he claims (Lunsod v.
Ortega)
2. A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without the requisite license cannot maintain any suit in the Philippines (Sec. 133, Corp. Code)
a. But not where the case involves a mere isolated transaction (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Inc. v.
Pacific Star Line)
b. But if the said foreign corporation is sued in our courts, it may seek relief against the wrongful assumption of jurisdiction and its petition therefor need not aver its legal capacity (Time, Inc. v. Reyes) 3. The issue of plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal where the defendant dealt with the former as a party in the proceedings below (Univ. of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. Univ. of
Pangasinan)
FIFTH GROUND LITIS PENDENTIA
Litis Pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.
Requisites of Litis Pendentia
1. Identity of the parties or at least such parties representing the same interests in both actions
2. There is substantial identity in the cause of action and relief sought, the relief being founded on the same facts; and
3. The identity in the two cases should be such that any judgment that may be rendered in one, regardless of which party is successful would amount to res judicata in the other case
Note: A motion to dismiss may be filed in either suit, not necessarily in the one instituted first
Purpose
- A sanction of public policy against multiplicity of suits - The latter action is deemed unnecessary and vexatious When Action is Deemed Pending
- Once the complaint is filed and there is a pending action, lack of knowledge of filing is of no moment
- The Rules merely state that another action pending between the same parties for the same cause is a ground for dismissal
- The rule does not contemplate that there be prior pending action, since it is enough that there is a pending action
139
- Neither is it required that the party be served with summons before lis pendens should apply (Andersons
Groups, Inc. v. CA)
Which of the Two Actions Shall be Dismissed? GENERAL RULE: Priority-in-Time Rule
- The general rule is that it should be the later case
- Second case should be dismissed not only as a matter of comity with a co-ordinate and co-equal court but also to prevent confusion that might seriously hinder the administration of justice
Note: That there is no hard and fast rule that governs the determination of which of the actions should be abated Court merely says that generally, it is the second case
which is abated
Law does not specifically require that the pending action which would hold in abatement the other be a prior pending action
Criteria in Determining Which Action Shall be Dismissed: 1. The More Appropriate Rule
a. The court held in Andresons Groups Inc. v. CA that the criterion used in determining which case should be abated is which is the more appropriate action or which the court would be in a better position to serve the interests of justice
b. Given the pendency of two action, the following are relevant considerations in determining which action should be dismissed (Allied Banking Corp v. CA): (1) The date of the filing, with reference generally
given to the first action filed to be retained; (2) Whether the action sought to be dismissed was
filed merely to pre-empt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal
(3) Whether the action is the appropriate vehicle for litigating the issues between the parties c. Examples:
(1) An action for unlawful detainer was considered as more appropriate than an action for declaratory relief with consignation (Teodoro v.
Mirasol)
(2) A case for consignation was dismissed, albeit filed earlier, due to the institution of a quieting of title suit in Ramos v. Peralta. SC held that the 2nd case has broader scope of inquiry
2. The Interest of Justice Rule
a. In applying this standard, what was asked was which court would be in a better position to serve the interests of justice
b. Taking into account:
(1) The nature of the controversy
(2) The comparative accessibility of the court to the parties
(3) Other similar factors
c. Example: In a case of custody, the case filed with the CFI was dismissed to give way to the case filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (Roa-
Magsaysay v. Magsaysay)
3. The Anticipatory Rule
a. The bona fide or good faith of the parties is a crucial element
(1) The second case shall not be abated if not brought to harass or vex
(2) The first case shall be abated if it is merely an anticipatory action or, an anticipatory defense against an unexpected suit – a clever move to steal the march from the aggrieved party b. Example: An action for collection ahead of an action
for a statement of account apparently to enable it to pay its obligation, is the appropriate case for determining the parties’ rights (Allied Banking Corp.
v. CA)
Discussion on the Requisites of Litis Pendentia 1. Identity of Parties
Only substantial, not absolute, identity of parties is required
Substantial identity – when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case albeit the latter was not impleaded in the first case
E.g. – Where the vendor was impleaded as defendant in 1st case, it cannot be denied that the interests of the
buyer are inextricably with those of vendor such that the former’s exercise of her rights as buyer of the land foreclosed by vendor, is conditioned on the latter’s defense of the validity of foreclosure procedures in the civil case for annulment of foreclosure sale (Sempio v. CA)
2. Identity of Rights
Identity of rights is regardless of form of action E.g. While in the first case, an action is for annulment
of foreclosure sale against vendor, and 2nd case is an
action for injunction filed by purchaser
a. What is dissimilar is only the form by which the purchaser has sought to enforce her right as new owner of land
b. There is only one cause of action running through the purchaser’s litigious undertaking: the continued violation of what she believes to be her right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land
3. Identity in the aforestated particulars
A plea of the pendency of a prior action is not available unless the prior action is of such a character that, had judgment been rendered therein on the merits, such a judgment would be conclusive between the parties and could be pleaded in bar of the 2nd
action
If the final judgment in one case is not conclusive in the other case, this requirement is not met
Note: The determination of whether there is an identity of causes of action for purposes of litis pendentia is inextricably linked with that of res judicata, each constituting an element of the other.
Examples
1. There is litis pendentia where 1st case is for breach of lease
contract and damages and 2nd case is for rescission of
contract and damages
There is identity of causes – validity of the agreement is in issue
2. There is no litis pendentia where the 1st case filed before
the SEC is to declare a contract of lease void for being ultra vires, and the 2nd case before the RTC for recovery of
possession of the property subject of the contract (Casil v.
CA)
In the 1st – focus was on the alleged ultra vires act and