TUNG HO STEEL ENTERPRISES VS.

TING GUAN, 07 APRIL 2014

DOCTRINE: Under the omnibus motion rule, a motion attacking a pleading,

order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available.

FACTS:

Petitioner Corporation filed a case before the RTC of Makati for the
enforcement of arbitral award. Respondent corporation filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of capacity to sue and for prematurity.
Subsequently, respondent filed a supplemental motion to dismiss on the
ground of improper venue.

ISSUE: Whether a supplemental motion to dismiss is a proper motion?

RULING:

No, 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.

In Anunciacion v. Bocanegra, we categorically stated that the defendant

should raise the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person
in the very first motion to dismiss. Failure to raise the issue of improper
service of summons in the first motion to dismiss is a waiver of this defense
and cannot be belatedly raised in succeeding motions and pleadings.
HOME DEVELOPMENT VS. SEE, 22 JUNE 2011

DOCTRINE: Under the Omnibus Motion Rule embodied in Section 8 of

Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, all available objections that are not included
in a party’s motion shall be deemed waived.

FACTS:

Respondent-spouses in the instant case filed before the RTC a complaint

for specific performance against the petitioner, due to the failure of the
latter to transfer the title of the property acquired by the respondents in the
extrajudicial foreclosure of property. The refusal of the petitioner to transfer
the title was due to the misappropriation by the court sheriff of the purchase
price.

All parties entered into a compromise agreement, the parties however

failed to comply with the agreement. Hence, the court ruled on the merits of
the case and decided in favor of the respondents.

Pag-ibig filed a motion for reconsideration on the sole ground that "[Pag-
ibig] should not be compelled to release the title to x x x [respondent-
spouses] See because Manuel Arimado [has] yet to deliver to [Pag-ibig] the
sum of ₱272,000.00." the RTC however denied the motion.

The Pag-ibig appealed the case arguing that Decision of the RTC is null
and void for having been issued without a trial.

Issue: Whether the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of nullity of the
Decision is proper?

RULING:

No, Pag-ibig’s argument that the February 21, 2002 Decision of the RTC is
null and void for having been issued without a trial, it is a mere afterthought
which deserves scant consideration. The Court notes that Pag-ibig did not
object to the absence of a trial when it sought a reconsideration of the
February 21, 2002 Decision. Instead, Pag-ibig raised the following lone
argument in their motion:
3. Consequently, [Pag-ibig] should not be compelled to release the title to
other [respondent-spouses] See because Manuel Arimado [has] yet to
deliver to [Pag-ibig] the sum of ₱ 272,000.00. 43

Under the Omnibus Motion Rule embodied in Section 8 of Rule 15 of the

Rules of Court, all available objections that are not included in a party’s
motion shall be deemed waived.
ERNESTO OPPEN, INC. V. COMPAS, OCTOBER 21, 2015

DOCTRINE: 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."

FACTS:

Compas filed a petition for the cancellation of TCT Nos. S-100612 and S-
100613 and for the issuance of new titles in his name before RTC-Las
Piñas, pon learning that TCT No. S-100162 had been cancelled and TCT
No. T-95712 had been issued in its place under EOI's name, Compas filed
his Motion to Admit Amended Petition,13 dated March 3, 2008.

EOI filed two motions to dismiss the Amended Petition of Compas. 14 On
July 15, 2009, the first motion to dismiss was filed on the ground of failure
to state a cause of action. EOI filed a second motion to dismiss arguing that
under Section 108 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, or the Property
Registration Decree, the court with jurisdiction was the court where the
original registration was filed and docketed.

RTC-Las Piñas issued an order denying EOI's second motion to dismiss on

the ground that Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 was inapplicable and that it
was vested with jurisdiction under Section 2 thereof.

ISSUE: Whether the denial of second motion to dismiss was proper?

RULING:

Yes, the second motion to dismiss was rightfully denied as EOI waived the
ground of improper venue after it had filed its first motion to dismiss
pursuant to the Omnibus Motion Rule. Section 8 of Rule 15 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides that a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment
or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections
not so included shall be deemed waived.
PILLARS PROPERTY CORPORATION V. CENTURY COMMUNITIES
CORPORATION, MARCH 4, 2019

DOCTRINE: Appeal is not available as a remedy to question either the

grant or denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper venue. If the
motion is denied, the order of denial is interlocutory since it does not
completely dispose of the case and is not appealable under Section 1(b),
Rule 41 of the Rules.45 If the motion is granted, the order of dismissal is
one without prejudice since the complaint can be re-filed and is not
appealable under Section 1(g) of Rule 41.

FACTS:

In a case field by the petitioner before the RTC, the respondent filed a
motion to dismiss on account of improper venue. The RTC granted the
motion to dismiss.

After denial of motion for reconsideration, the petitioner appealed the case
on certiorari before the CA. the CA dismissed the case reasoned that
petitioner availed of the wrong remedy since it is the settled rule that an
order of dismissal.

ISSUE: Whether the outright denial of the CA is proper?

RULING: No, An order dismissing an action without prejudice is, thus, not
subject to appeal but is reviewable by a Rule 65 certiorari petition.

Appeal is not available as a remedy to question either the grant or denial of

a motion to dismiss based on improper venue. If the motion is denied, the
order of denial is interlocutory since it does not completely dispose of the
case and is not appealable under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules. 45 If
the motion is granted, the order of dismissal is one without prejudice since
the complaint can be re-filed and is not appealable under Section 1(g) of
Rule 41.
APOSTOLIC VICAR OF TABUK, INC. V. SISON, JANUARY 27, 2016

FACTS:

Respondents filed a forcible entry case against Fr. Gudmalin, which the
court granted due to failure of the defendant to file an answer.

Several motion for reconsideration was filed and denied. Hence, the
petitioner filed a petition for annulment before RTC argued that the MCTC
rendered the decision without acquiring jurisdiction over its person. It also
alleged that the Vicariate of Mt. Province no longer exists because it was
dissolved in 1990. The petition was filed before the RTC of Luna, Apayao.

 RTC dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action. The RTC
reasoned that the petitioner's filing of a notice of appeal and subsequent
failure to file its appeal memorandum precluded its resort to annulment of
judgment; the remedy is not available to a party who lost his right to appeal
due to his own fault. The RTC concluded that since the petitioner claimed
ownership over the property, then it should file an appropriate case of
ownership with the proper court instead.

ISSUE: Whether the case was dismissed due to failure to state cause of
action?

RULING:

No,the dismissal was actually due to lack of a cause of action.

Failure to state a cause of action and lack of a cause of action are not the
same. Failure to state a cause of action refers to an insufficiency of the
allegations in the petition/complaint.

On the other hand, the lack of a cause of action refers to

an insufficiency of factual or legal basis to grant the complaint. It
applies to a situation where the evidence failed to prove the cause of action
alleged in the pleading. It is a ground for dismissal using a demurrer to
evidence under Rule 33 after the plaintiff has completed presenting his
evidence. The dismissal constitutes res judicata on the issue and will bar
future suits based on the same cause of action.

the petition for annulment of judgment actually stated a cause of action.

CHING VS. CHENG, 08 OCTOBER 2014

DOCTRINE: The "two-dismissal rule" under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure will not apply if the prior dismissal was done at the
instance of the defendant.

FACTS:

Petitioner named himself as the sole heir of Antonio Ching’s estate in the
settlement of estate. Subsequently respondents filed a complaint for
declaration of nullity of title against petitioner. Po Wing Properties, a
defendant, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of
the subject matter which was granted.

Another case was filed by the respondent involving the same cause of
action against the defendants. Before the summons have been served, the
respondent moved for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, which
was granted.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. They argue that
the dismissal should have been with prejudice under the "two-dismissal
rule" of Rule 17, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in view of
the previous dismissal of the first case.

ISSUE: Whether the case is covered by the two dismissal rule?

RULING:

No, In all instances, Rule 17 governs dismissals at the instance of the

plaintiff, not of the defendant. Dismissals upon the instance of the
defendant are generally governed by Rule 16, which covers motions to
dismiss. Hence, the "two-dismissal rule" under Rule 17, Section 1 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure will not apply if the prior dismissal was done at the
instance of the defendant.
PADILLA VS. GLOBE ASIATIQUE REALTY, 06 AUGUST 2014

DOCTRINE: the dismissal of the complaint due to failure of the plaintiff to

prosecute his case is "without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action."

FACTS:

Respondent initiated an action against petitioner and the presiding judge, in

a separate case where both parties are involved, due to the petitioner’s
malicious initiation of an action and the Judge’s act of continuing the trial.

The petitioner filed his answer with compulsory counterclaim, and moved
for the dismissal of the case. The court granted the motion to dismiss, and
equally applied the dismissal in the compulsory counterclaim of the
petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of a complaint carries with it the dismissal of

compulsory counterclaim?

RULING:

A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an

opposing party. It is in the nature of a cross-complaint; a distinct and
independent cause of action which, though alleged in the answer, is not
part of the answer.

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it is now explicitly provided that
the dismissal of the complaint due tofailure of the plaintiff to prosecute his
case is "without prejudice to the rightof the defendant to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action."
ROYAL PLAINS VIEW, INC. V. MEJIA, NOVEMBER 12, 2018

FACTS:

In a case filed by the petitioner before the RTC, the respondent was
declared in default. The RTC dismissed the case as it found that the whole
transaction between petitioners and Nestor was tainted with badges of
fraud.

Petitioner appealed the case before the CA, where the CA ordered the
respondent to file an appellee’s brief.

Petitioner argued that the CA erred in its order as the respondent was
already declared in default.

ISSUE:

Whether the party declared in default may not file an appellee’s brief?

RULING:

No, a defending party declared in default loses his standing in the trial court
and his right to adduce evidence and to present his defense, 42 this,
however, does not impliedly suggest a loss of all his/her rights in the stages
of the case after the default judgment.

The provision that the defaulting party cannot take part in the trial only
meant that he/she has already lost his/her standing in the trial court. In
other words, the effect of the judgment of default is limited only to those
stages in the prosecution of the case which terminated with and included in
the judgment of the trial court on the merits.
MANUEL V. ONG, OCTOBER 15, 2014

FACTS:

Respondent Ong filed an accion reinvicatoria case against petitioners.

However, after repeated service of summons they refused to receive the
same, the sheriff even explained to them to filed an answer within 15 days,
but the petitioners did not file an answer.

The court declared them in default, Spouses filed a motion to lift the order
of default, but the court refused to grant the same.

ISSUE: Whether the dismissal is valid?

RULING:

The recognition that it is the defendant who is at fault and must suffer the
consequences of his or her own failure is analogous to the dismissal of an
action due to the fault of a plaintiff, as provided by Rule 17, Section 3 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 17, Section 3 reads:

SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. — If for no justifiable cause,

the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in
chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable
length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to
prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This
dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless
otherwise declared by the court.

In this case, the Spouses Manuel only have themselves to blame in not
properly receiving the summons and copy of the complaint served on them.
This is evidently an act of obstinate refusal to submit to and to comply with
court processes. Thus, the r Spouses Manuel are not deserving of any
leniency.
BLAY V. BAÑA, MARCH 7, 2018

FACTS:

In an annulment proceeding filed by the petitioner, the respondent filed a

compulsory counterclaim. Subsequently, the petitioner loses interest of the
case and filed a motion to withdraw. Respondent prayed that her
counterclaims be declared as remaining for the court's independent
adjudication. In reply, respondent averring that respondent's counterclaims
are barred from being prosecuted in the same action due to her failure to
file a manifestation therefor within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
Motion to Withdraw, which - according to petitioner - was required under
the same Rules of Court provision.

The lower court granted the motion to withdraw, but declared the
counterclaim "as remaining for independent adjudication".

ISSUE: Whether counterclaim may proceed after the dismissal of the main
complaint despite the non-filing a manifestation?

RULING:

No, as stated in the third sentence of Section 2, Rule 17, if the defendant
desires to prosecute his counterclaim in the same action, he is required to
file a manifestation within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion.
Otherwise, his counterclaim may be prosecuted in a separate action.