Case Digest (G.R. No. 169292)
Facts:
Spouses Francisco De Guzman, Jr. and Amparo O. De Guzman v. Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, represented by Araceli S. Azores, G.R. No. 169292, April 13, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.On March 25, 2002, Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, through Araceli S. Azores (who purportedly acted as attorney‑in‑fact), filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Civil Case No. 68896, an action for annulment of contract of mortgage, foreclosure sale, certificate of sale and damages. The case was raffled to Branch 160, presided by Judge Amelia A. Fabros.
The petitioners, Spouses Francisco and Amparo De Guzman, defendants in Civil Case No. 68896, filed a motion to dismiss on May 22, 2002 alleging failure to state a cause of action; this motion was opposed by the private respondents. On December 16, 2002, Judge Fabros denied that first motion to dismiss and set the case for pre‑trial, ordering pre‑trial briefs.
On March 31, 2003, the petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss asserting that the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping attached to the complaint was not executed by the plaintiffs themselves but by Azores, who was attorney‑in‑fact only for Cesar Ochoa and, in any event, lacked authority to institute the action — thus, the petitioners argued, the complaint was fatally defective. The private respondents opposed the second motion.
Judge Fabros denied the second motion to dismiss on February 12, 2004, and subsequently denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on December 29, 2004. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) — CA‑GR. SP No. 89329 — arguing that the RTC’s denial was capricious, arbitrary and amounted to grave abuse of discretion because the certification requirement under Section 5, Rule 7 was not complied with. On August 11, 2005 the CA (opinion penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin) denied the petition for lack of merit, holding that under the omnibus motion rule the petitioners had waived the defect by not raising it in their first motion to dismiss.
...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is certiorari under Rule 45 a proper remedy to assail the RTC order denying the motion to dismiss, or is such interlocutory order reviewable only after final judgment absent grave abuse of discretion?
- Did the petitioners waive their objection to the allegedly defective verification and certification by failing to raise it in their first motion to dismiss under the omnibus motion rule (Section 8, Rule 15)?
- Does the failure to have the plaintiffs personally execute the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping render the complaint fatally defective or jurisdictional, thereby ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)