J.O.S. MANAGING BUILDERS v.

UNITED OVERSEAS
BANK
Motion to Dismiss (formerly Rule
16)
G.R. No. Ponente Date
G.R. No. 219815 JARDALEZA, J. SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
Petitioners Respondents
J.O.S MANAGING BUILDERS UNITED OVERSEAS BANK

DOCTRINE: A motion to dismiss can still be given due course, based on an event that
transpired after the filing of an answer.

I. Facts of the case

 Petitioner J.O.S. Managing (JOS) filed a petition for annulment of extrajudicial

foreclosure against United Overseas Bank (UOB) in RTC-QC.
 RTC issued a writ for preliminary injunction against UOB prohibiting them from
consolidating title to the subject properties and committing any acts prejudicial
to petitioners.
 RTC issued decision annulling the extrajudicial closure and public auction.
 JOS then filed a petition to declare respondents in contempt of court in RTC-
QC Br. 220. Petitioners averred that respondents sale constitutes indirect
contempt of court because it was done in violation of the writ issued, because
while the annulment case was pending UOB sold the properties to Onshore
Strategic Assets.
 UOB filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the sale of properties did not
violate the writ. RTC Br. 220 denied the motion to dismiss. OUB moved for
reconsideration which was also denied.
 UOB then raised the issue before the CA via petition for certiorari, but was
dismissed.
 UOB then filed an Answer Ad Cautelam in RTC Br. 220 regarding the Contempt
Charge, contending that the writ merely prohibited them from consolidating
titles to the properties and the sale is not prejudicial to the interest of the
petitioners.
 However, the Contempt Case was re-raffled to RTC Br. 87. UOB then filed a
second motion to dismiss. They argued that the decision of the RTC in the
annulment case was reversed by the CA, and the CA’s dismissal of the
annulment case dissolved the writ because it is merely ancillary to the main
case. And that therefore the alleged violation of the writ has become moot and
academic. RTC Br. 87 granted the motion to dismiss.
 JOS filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. UOB filed a motion to
expunge the MR on the ground that petitioners violated the three-day notice
under Section 4, Rule 15. RTC Br. 87 granted the motion to Expunge.
 Hence the recourse by the SC.
II. Issue/s

1. WON THE RTC BR. 87 ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO

RESPONDENT’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
2. WON THE RTC BR. 87 ERRED WHEN IT DIMISSED THE
CONTEMPT CASE FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC

III. Ratio/Legal Basis

As to the first issue:

 NO. Court held that JOS is incorrect in arguing that respondents violated Section
1 of Rule 16 when they filed their second motion to dismiss after filing it almost 1 year
and 6 months after they submitted their Answer Ad Cautelam, when must be filed “within
the time for but filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim.”
 They reiterated the ruling in the Obando v. Figuearas case that “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.
 And the conviction of estafa through falsification of Obando, was only then that this
ground became available to respondent Figueras. Hence it could not be said that they
waived it by raising it in a motion to dismiss filed after their answer was submitted.”
 In the same manner, respondents' motion to dismiss was based on an event that
transpired after it filed its Answer Ad Cautelam. Consequently, there was no
violation of Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules as they could not have possibly raised
it as an affirmative defense in their answer.

As to the second issue:

 YES. Court ruled that while RTC Br. 87 did not err in giving due course to
respondents' motion to dismiss, the propriety of granting it is an entirely different
matter.
 In this case, the sale of the properties—which is the act alleged to be in violation of the
2000 writ—was conducted while the 2000 writ was still subsisting.
 In fact, the 2000 writ was issued on May 17, 2000, while the sale was made on May 5,
2008. RTC Br. 98 annulled the sale in favor of petitioners on June 12, 2008.
IV. Disposition

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The October 7, 2014 and

July 20, 2015 Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87 in Civil
Case No. Q-11-69413 are hereby REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the
court a quo for continuance of the trial of the case.