Case Summary (G.R. No. 169292)
Factual Background
On March 25, 2002, Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, through Araceli S. Azores acting as attorney-in-fact, filed an action in the RTC for annulment of contract of mortgage, foreclosure sale, certificate of sale, and damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 68896 and entitled Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, etc. v. Josefa M. Guevarra, et al. The petitioners were impleaded as defendants in that action. The complaint included a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping that was signed by Azores rather than by the principal parties, a fact later made central to petitioners’ challenge.
Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court
The complaint was raffled to Branch 160, presided by Judge Amelia A. Fabros. On May 22, 2002, Spouses Francisco and Amparo De Guzman filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The private respondents opposed that motion. On December 16, 2002, Judge Fabros denied the first motion to dismiss and set the case for pre-trial, directing submission of pre-trial briefs.
Petitioners' Second Motion to Dismiss
On March 31, 2003, Spouses Francisco and Amparo De Guzman filed a second motion to dismiss contending that the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the complaint was not executed personally by the plaintiffs and was therefore in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 and fatally defective. The private respondents opposed the second motion.
Orders Denying Relief and Motion for Reconsideration
Judge Fabros issued an order on February 12, 2004 denying the second motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Petitioners moved for reconsideration on May 25, 2004. The motion for reconsideration was denied by order dated December 29, 2004. These interlocutory orders did not terminate the action on the merits.
Petition to the Court of Appeals
Aggrieved by the denial of their motion for reconsideration, Spouses Francisco and Amparo De Guzman sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, asserting that the complaint should have been dismissed because the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was not personally executed by the plaintiffs and because Azores’ power of attorney did not authorize institution of the action. Petitioners argued that the trial court’s refusal to dismiss constituted capricious and arbitrary action amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Decision of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals denied the petition on August 11, 2005, finding no grave abuse of discretion in Judge Fabros’ orders. The CA held that under the omnibus motion rule, the defects raised in the second motion to dismiss were waived because petitioners failed to assert them in their first motion to dismiss. The CA treated the verification and certification defects as non-jurisdictional and therefore not the proper basis for certiorari relief in the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Present Petition and Ground
The petition before the Supreme Court was filed under Rule 45, Rules of Court. The sole ground asserted was that the court a quo decided a question of substance not in accordance with law and jurisprudence by refusing to dismiss the complaint despite the absence of personal execution of the certification of non-forum shopping as required by Section 5, Rule 7. Petitioners maintained that the defect raised a jurisdictional issue that was exempt from the omnibus motion rule and that the RTC should have dismissed the complaint motu proprio.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Reviewability
The Supreme Court ruled that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari, which is a remedy directed to errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The Court reiterated that the ordinary remedy is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and, if adversely affected, raise the issue on appeal from final judgment. The Court explained that certiorari lies only in exceptional cases where the denial of a motion to dismiss is tainted by grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
Application of the Omnibus Motion Rule
The Court applied Section 8, Rule 15 and observed that a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion attacking a pleading. The rule requires that all objections available at the time of the filing of the omnibus motion be raised therein, otherwise they are deemed waived. The Court noted that the defects in verification and certification were available and existent at the time of the petitioners’ first motion to dismiss but were not raised until the second motion, and the petitioners offered no justifiable reason for the omission. Consequently, the Court affirmed the CA’s conclusion that those objections were waived.
Nature of Verification and Certification Requirement
The Supreme Court held that the requirement of verification is formal rather than jurisdictional. Verification secures assurance that the allegations are true and that the pleading is filed in good faith, and courts may order correction of or act upon unverified pleadings where strict compliance may be dispensed with in the interest of justice. Likewise, the certification against forum shopping under Section 5, Rule 7 was held obligatory but not jurisdictional. The Court reiterated that the certification requirement aims to prevent concurrent proceedings in different fora, but non-compliance does not ipso facto deprive the court of jurisdiction.
Requirement for Dismissal and Motu Proprio Issue
The Court interpreted Section 5, Rule 7 to mean that failure to comply with the anti-forum-shopping requirements is cause for dismissal "upon motion and after hearing." The Court therefore rejected petition
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169292)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Spouses Francisco De Guzman, Jr. and Amparo O. De Guzman were defendants in Civil Case No. 68896 and later petitioners before the Court.
- Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 68896 and respondents in this petition, as represented by Araceli S. Azores as attorney-in-fact.
- The action for annulment of contract and damages was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 160 and was presided over by Judge Amelia A. Fabros.
- The petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the RTC order that denied petitioners’ second motion to dismiss.
Key Factual Allegations
- On March 25, 2002, Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, through Araceli S. Azores, filed the complaint for annulment of contract and damages in the RTC.
- On May 22, 2002, petitioners filed a first motion to dismiss alleging that the complaint did not state a cause of action.
- On December 16, 2002, the RTC denied the first motion to dismiss and set the case for pre-trial with directions to submit pre-trial briefs.
- On March 31, 2003, petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss alleging that the verification and certification against forum shopping were not executed by the principal plaintiffs but by Azores, whom petitioners claimed lacked authority to institute suit.
- The RTC denied the second motion to dismiss by order dated February 12, 2004, and denied the motion for reconsideration by order dated December 29, 2004.
Procedural History
- The petitioners elevated the RTC orders denying the second motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari.
- On August 11, 2005, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
- Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court alleging grave abuse of discretion and jurisdictional defect.
Issues
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the second motion to dismiss.
- Whether the defect in the verification and certification against forum shopping rendered the complaint fatally defective and thus subject to dismissal.
- Whether the petitioners waived the objection to the defective verification and certification under the omnibus motion rule.
- Whether the trial court could dismiss the complaint motu proprio for noncompliance with the certification requirement.
Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioners contended that the certification against forum shopping was not executed by the plaintiffs, that Azores lacked authority to institute the action, and that the defect was jurisdictional and not waivable.
- Respondents contended that petitioners waived the objection by failing to raise it in their first motion to dismiss and that the certification and verification requirements are formal and not jurisdictional.