Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236)
Background of the Case
The case involves an action for annulment of contract and damages, initiated by Respondent spouses Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia Ochoa against various parties, including the petitioners, in a Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Pasig City. The action, entitled Civil Case No. 68896, was filed on March 25, 2002, with the complaint alleging the annulment of several contracts related to a mortgage and damages. The case was presided over by Judge Amelia A. Fabros of RTC Branch 160.
Initial Actions Taken by Petitioners
On May 22, 2002, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it lacked a cause of action. This motion was formally opposed by the respondents. Subsequently, the RTC denied the motion on December 16, 2002, and scheduled the case for pre-trial.
Second Motion to Dismiss
The petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss on March 31, 2003, citing a defect in the certification against forum shopping attached to the complaint. They contended that the certification was not executed by the principal parties, thus rendering the complaint fatally defective. The RTC Judge denied this second motion on February 12, 2004, and reiterated this decision in a subsequent order on December 29, 2004.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Aggrieved by the RTC's denial of their motions, the petitioners escalated the issue to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari. They argued that the RTC should have dismissed the complaint motu proprio due to the alleged defect in the verification and certification attached to the complaint. The CA, however, found no merit in the petition, agreeing with the RTC's application of the omnibus motion rule, which stipulated that defects must be raised at the first instance.
Supreme Court Decision
In their petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that their second motion to dismiss was validly pursued and did not violate the Omnibus Motion Rule, as it raised a jurisdictional issue. The Court clarified that a motion to dismiss is considered interlocutory and is not subject to special civil action for certiorari unless it is shown that there has been grave abuse of discretion.
Interpretation of Omnibus Motion Rule
The Court emphasized that the omnibus motion rule mandates that all objections—including those pertaining to the verification and certification of forum shopping—be raised in the initial pleading. Failure to do so results in waiver unless the objections are jurisdictional in nature. However, the requirement for verification and necessary certifications is deemed formal and not jurisdictional; thus, their absence does not automatically invalidate the complaint.
Judicial
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236)
Case Background
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Spouses Francisco De Guzman, Jr. and Amparo O. De Guzman against respondents Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, represented by their attorney-in-fact, Araceli S. Azores.
- The petition challenges the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 11, 2005, which upheld the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision denying the petitioners' second motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 68896, an action for annulment of contract and damages.
Facts of the Case
- On March 25, 2002, respondents Cesar and Sylvia Ochoa initiated an action against several parties, including the petitioners, in RTC Pasig City, seeking annulment of a mortgage contract and damages.
- The case was assigned to Branch 160 of the RTC, presided by Judge Amelia A. Fabros.
- Petitioners filed their first motion to dismiss on May 22, 2002, arguing that the complaint did not state a cause of action. The RTC denied this motion on December 16, 2002, and scheduled a pre-trial conference.
- On March 31, 2003, petitioners submitted a second motion to dismiss, claiming that the certification against forum shopping was not executed by the principal parties, thus rendering the complaint defective.
- T