RULE 16: MOTION TO DISMISS

Date Published:

LAW ON LEGAL AND COURT PROCESSES:

A RULE-BY-RULE EXPOSITION


PUBLISHED ONLY VIA

PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE - PHILIPPINES

 

-oOo-

 

MARK ANGELO S. DELA PEÑA


To cite this online book, please use the following:


Dela Peña. 2023. "Law on Legal and Court Processes: A Rule-by-Rule Exposition." Published by Project Jurisprudence - Philippines. Published: September 20, 2023. Link: [Insert link] Last accessed: [Insert date of access].

x---------------------------------------------x


RULE 16: MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 16 on motions to dismiss has been collapsed and deleted. Under the present state of the Rules of Court, Rule 16 no longer exists because dismissal grounds have been limited to four (4) things: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) bar by statute of limitations; (c) bar by prior judgment; and (d) pendency of another action between the same parties over the same claim.

This, however, does not mean that the old-now-deleted Rule 16 is completely useless. The reason for this is that the grounds mentioned under Section 1 thereof remain to be useful affirmative defenses that may be raised in an answer. These grounds are: (a) that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party; (b) that venue is improperly laid; (c) that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; (d) that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; (e) that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; (f) that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and (g) that a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.

OVER-PERSON JURISDICTION

Lack of over-person jurisdiction is related to the rules on service of summons. Failure to serve summons upon the defendant or failure to do so properly results in such lack of jurisdiction.

IMPROPER VENUE

Improper venue is related to the rules on venue of personal actions and real actions. To recall, real actions must be filed in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the territory in which the real property is located or any portion thereof. On the other hand, personal actions may be filed in the residence of the plaintiff or the residence of the defendant, at the election of the plaintiff.

LACK OF LEGAL CAPACITY

Both “lack of legal capacity to sue” and “lack of legal personality” to sue are affirmative defenses.[1] In the first, the ground is "that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue,” while in the second, the ground is based on the fact “that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action.”[2]

The Rules of Court mandates that only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Non-compliance with this requirement renders a case dismissible on the ground of lack of legal capacity to sue, which 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.”[3]

Jurisprudence provides that an unregistered association, having no separate juridical personality, lacks the capacity to sue in its own name.[4] In the case of Alliance of Quezon City Homeowners Association (Alliance) v. Quezon City Government,[5] Alliance admitted that it had no juridical personality, considering the revocation of its Certificate of Registration issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its failure to register with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) as a homeowner’s association. Nevertheless, Alliance insisted that the petition should not be dismissed because it was filed by the members of the Board of Trustees in their own personal capacities, as evidenced by a letter dated March 10, 2017 (Authorization Letter) authorizing its ostensible Treasurer, Danilo Liwanag (Liwanag), to file the petition in their behalf. The Supreme Court disagreed with Alliance because Rule 3 of the Rules of Court[6] requires that their names as beneficiaries must be included in the title of the case, which was, however, not done here.

FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION

In his book entitled Remedial Law Compendium,[7] Justice Florenz D. Regalado, a recognized commentator on remedial law, explained the distinction between failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action. He said that what is contemplated by the Rules of Court is a failure to state a cause of action; this is a matter of insufficiency of the pleading. It is different from a situation where the evidence does not prove a cause of action; this is a matter of insufficiency of evidence. The remedy in the first is to raise the same as an affirmative defense in an answer, while the remedy in the second is to demur to the evidence, i.e., to file a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court.

The failure to object on the ground of failure to state cause of action is waivable under the omnibus motion rule and under Rule 9 on waiver of objections.

PAYMENT, WAIVER, ABANDONMENT, EXTINGUISHMENT & UNENFORCEABILITY

Generally, these matters are defenses that require the introduction of evidence. The defendant must prove that the debt has already been paid, or that the plaintiff has already waived or abandoned the claim by some express or implied acts or omissions, or that the law has already considered the same extinguished or otherwise unenforceable.

It must be emphasized that extinguishment is different from prescription. Extinguishment is the dissolution of a juridical tie, thereby relieving the obligor of his/her duties under the law or under a contract. This is governed by Article 1231 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, among other laws. On the other hand, prescription refers to the lapse of time fixed by law that causes a right or obligation to expire. Under Article 1106 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, by prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by prescription.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

A condition precedent is one required prior to the filing of a case in court. An example of this is the barangay justice system incorporated under the Local Government Code of the Philippines. Under Section 412 of the said Code, no complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

[1] 2020 AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 8, Section 12.

[2] Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, 329 Phil. 875, 900-901 (1996).

[3] Alabang Development Corporation v. Alabang Hills Village Association, 734 Phil. 664, 669 (2014), citing Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 901 (1996).

[4] Association of Flood Victims v. Commission on Elections, 740 Phil. 472, 480 (2014). See also Dueñas v. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association, 474 Phil. 834, 846-847 (2004) and Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera, 547 Phil. 560, 570 (2007).

[5] 840 Phil. 277 [ G.R. No. 230651. September 18, 2018 ].

[6] Representatives as parties. – Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed the real party in interest. See also Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Mosquera, 547 Phil. 560, 570 (2007).

[7] Volume I, Ninth Revised Ed. (2005), p. 182.