G.R. No. 169292 - Spouses De Guzman, Jr. vs. Spouses Ochoa

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners, Spouses Francisco De Guzman, Jr. and Amparo O. De Guzman, challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 11, 2005.
The CA had upheld the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 160, in Civil Case No. 68896, in which the RTC had denied the petitioners’ motions to dismiss.

On March 25, 2002, respondent spouses Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia Ochoa, represented by Araceli Azores acting as attorney-in-fact, filed an action in the RTC seeking annulment of a contract of mortgage, foreclosure sale, certificate of sale, and damages.
The civil action, docketed as Civil Case No. 68896 (titled Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, etc. v. Josefa M. Guevarra, et al.), was raffled to Branch 160 and assigned to RTC Judge Amelia A. Fabros.

On May 22, 2002, petitioners, then defendants in the underlying action, filed their first motion to dismiss, alleging that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
The private respondents formally opposed this motion, and on December 16, 2002, the RTC denied the first motion to dismiss while scheduling the case for pre-trial conference.

On March 31, 2003, petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss. This motion contended that the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the complaint was defective because it was not signed by the purported principal parties but rather by the attorney-in-fact, Araceli S. Azores.
Petitioners argued that the failure to execute the certification personally by Cesar or Sylvia Ochoa rendered the complaint fatally defective.
On February 12, 2004, RTC Judge Fabros issued an order denying the second motion to dismiss.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on May 25, 2004, was also denied on December 29, 2004.

Petitioners elevated the denial of their second motion to dismiss to the CA through a petition for certiorari, arguing that:

The defect regarding the defective verification and certification of non-forum shopping was a jurisdictional matter and should not have been waived since it was not raised in their first motion to dismiss.
The RTC should have dismissed the complaint motu proprio due to the fatal defect in the filing.

The CA, however, ruled against the petitioners on August 11, 2005, holding that the omission of raising the defect in the initial motion resulted in a waiver under the omnibus motion rule.

Petitioners claimed that Judge Fabros’ denial of the second motion to dismiss was arbitrary, capricious, and amounted to a grave abuse of discretion.
They emphasized that because the issue pertained to jurisdiction, even if waived, it should have been raised by the RTC on its own motion.

Whether the denial of the motion to dismiss by the RTC constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Whether the defect concerning the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping should be considered waived under the omnibus motion rule, given that it was not raised in the initial motion to dismiss.
Whether the trial court should have dismissed the complaint motu proprio for failing to comply with the formal requirement of personal execution of the certification by the principal parties.
Whether an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss is reviewable through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 as a question of jurisdiction.