Disclaimer: The following discussion is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on the Rules of Court of the Philippines (particularly the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on May 1, 2020) and relevant Supreme Court issuances. If you need advice regarding a specific legal issue, please consult a qualified Philippine attorney.

Prohibited Motions Under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court (2019 Amendments)

1. Overview

Under the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court strengthened the policy against dilatory tactics by expressly enumerating motions that are prohibited. These prohibited motions, when filed, shall be denied outright by the court. This rule is embodied in Section 12, Rule 15 of the amended Rules of Court.

The objective is to streamline procedures, expedite the resolution of cases, and prevent parties from resorting to motions that needlessly delay proceedings. Understanding these prohibited motions and the rationale behind them is crucial for any litigant or lawyer.

2. Statutory Basis

Rule 15, Section 12 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC).

Specifically, Section 12 reads as follows (paraphrased with references to relevant subdivisions):

Section 12. Prohibited Motions. The following motions shall not be allowed:

Motion to dismiss the complaint, except on the following grounds:

(a) The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(b) There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia);

(c) The action is barred by a prior judgment (res judicata); or

(d) The action is barred by the statute of limitations (prescription).

Motion to hear affirmative defenses.

Motion for reconsideration of the court’s action on the affirmative defenses.

Motion to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order (TRO) or injunction.

Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper, except a motion for extension to file an Answer (the period of which cannot exceed thirty [30] calendar days).

Other motions of similar nature intended for delay.

Below is an in-depth explanation of each prohibited motion.

3. Detailed Discussion of Each Prohibited Motion

3.1. Motion to Dismiss (Except on Specific Grounds)

General Rule

Under the previous rules, a party could file a motion to dismiss based on various grounds (e.g., improper venue, lack of jurisdiction over the person, failure to state a cause of action, etc.).
Under the 2019 Amendments, a motion to dismiss is generally prohibited to avoid piecemeal or dilatory tactics.

Exceptions: A motion to dismiss is allowed only if anchored on any of these four (4) specific grounds:

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
Litis pendentia (there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause)
Res judicata (the action is barred by a prior judgment)
Prescription (the action is barred by the statute of limitations)

Implication

If a defendant wants to challenge the complaint on other grounds (e.g., improper venue, failure to state a cause of action, or lack of capacity to sue), those unlisted grounds must be raised as affirmative defenses in the Answer, not via a motion to dismiss.
This shift forces defendants to file their Answer promptly and raise all possible defenses, preventing the delay associated with successive motions.

3.2. Motion to Hear Affirmative Defenses

The rules now require that affirmative defenses be resolved by the court within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the Answer (Rule 8, Section 12).
A separate motion to hear or set for hearing the affirmative defenses is expressly disallowed.
The rationale is to prevent unnecessary hearings and to expedite the process. The court motu proprio (on its own initiative) or upon the filing of the Answer will already determine whether the affirmative defenses have merit and resolve them.

3.3. Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Action on the Affirmative Defenses

After the court rules on the affirmative defenses (for instance, denies them), the losing party cannot file a motion for reconsideration of that ruling.
This prohibition aims to prevent the repetitive filing of motions that essentially rehearse the same arguments already resolved by the court.
Instead, the proper remedy to challenge an unfavorable ruling on affirmative defenses typically becomes part of the appellate review (if the final judgment is eventually rendered and appealed).
In some circumstances, the matter can also be raised in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 if there is a claim of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction—but the rule contemplates that interlocutory orders are generally not subject to appeal or reconsideration under ordinary procedures.

3.4. Motion to Suspend Proceedings without a TRO or Injunction

Under prior practice, parties might move to suspend proceedings on various grounds without necessarily securing a court order or injunction from the proper forum.
To avoid stalling the litigation, the amended rule prohibits a motion to suspend unless there is a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction issued by a higher court or competent tribunal that justifies the suspension of the proceedings.
Without that TRO or injunction, the trial court proceeds to hear and resolve the case.
This prevents undue delay when a party expects to obtain an injunction but never does.

3.5. Motion for Extension of Time to File Pleadings, Affidavits, or Other Papers (With Specific Exceptions)

Generally, motions for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or other papers are prohibited.
Exception: The one specific extension that is allowed is an extension of time to file an Answer. Even then, the extension period cannot exceed thirty (30) calendar days.
This limitation forces parties to be more diligent in submitting their filings on time and avoids undue stretching of deadlines that compromise the speedy disposition of cases.

3.6. Other Motions Intended for Delay

The rule includes a catch-all prohibition against motions “of similar nature intended for delay.”
Courts are empowered to deny outright any motion that, even if not expressly listed, clearly appears to have no substantial purpose other than to delay the proceedings.
This grants the court ample discretion to curb procedural abuses.

4. Rationale and Policy Considerations

Speedy Disposition of Cases
- The 1987 Philippine Constitution and various Supreme Court circulars consistently emphasize the need for prompt resolution of cases. Prohibiting certain motions (especially repeated and unnecessary ones) helps achieve this goal.
Discouragement of Dilatory Tactics
- Parties sometimes file motions in bad faith to buy time or frustrate the opposing party. By categorically disallowing these motions, the Rules reduce the opportunities for delay.
Judicial Efficiency
- Courts are spared from having to receive, set for hearing, and resolve motions that are ultimately inconsequential or have already been addressed by existing procedures.
Promotion of Fairness
- Allowing a case to proceed swiftly and efficiently benefits both parties. Even the party who might appear to benefit from delay could later face negative consequences if the court imposes sanctions or the case drags on indefinitely.

5. Remedies When a Motion Is Prohibited

Outright Denial: A prohibited motion shall be denied outright by the court.
Inclusion in the Answer (for defenses): Grounds not allowed as a basis for a motion to dismiss must be included in the Answer as affirmative defenses.
Interlocutory Nature: If the court rules adversely on these matters, the recourse is typically to proceed with the case and raise the issue on appeal from the final judgment, unless there is a clear ground for extraordinary relief (e.g., certiorari under Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion).
Court Discretion: If a party files a prohibited motion, the court may, upon motion of the opposing party or motu proprio, impose sanctions if it is shown that the filing was frivolous or dilatory.

6. Practical Implications for Litigants and Lawyers

Draft a Comprehensive Answer:
- Since almost all grounds for dismissal—except the four specifically listed—must now be pleaded as affirmative defenses, it is imperative to file an Answer that addresses all possible defenses thoroughly.
Avoid Piecemeal Litigation Strategies:
- Attorneys should resist the urge to file multiple motions that the court will reject outright, as this not only delays the proceedings (which may result in sanction) but also can damage the credibility of counsel in the eyes of the court.
Timely Compliance:
- Courts are much stricter about deadlines. Except for a one-time extension for filing an Answer (not exceeding 30 days), parties should plan filings meticulously to avoid missing cutoffs.
Anticipate Court’s Summary Rulings on Affirmative Defenses:
- Because the court resolves affirmative defenses within 30 days from the filing of the Answer, counsel must be prepared to marshal evidence and arguments promptly.
- There is no second chance via a motion for reconsideration on the court’s resolution of these defenses.
Coordinate with Appellate or Higher Courts for Injunctive Relief:
- If a party truly needs to suspend the lower court proceedings, it must secure a TRO or injunction from the appropriate forum. Simply filing a motion to suspend in the trial court without such order is now expressly prohibited.

7. Illustrative Jurisprudence and Guidelines

While the 2019 Amendments are relatively recent, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that prohibited motions must be denied outright (e.g., Marinas v. People, G.R. No. 231608 [2020]; Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, G.R. No. 232820 [2021], applying principles consistent with the new rules). Courts emphasize the swift and efficient administration of justice and have repeatedly reiterated that:

Technicalities must not prevail over substantive rights, but
Litigants must abide by procedural rules designed to expedite proceedings and avoid delay.

Any motion or pleading filed primarily for vexation, delay, or harassing purposes may subject the counsel or party to administrative and disciplinary action under both the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Conclusion

Prohibited motions under Rule 15, Section 12 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reflect the Supreme Court’s determination to streamline court processes and curb dilatory tactics. By disallowing motions to dismiss on grounds other than the four listed, motions to hear affirmative defenses, motions for reconsideration of affirmative defense rulings, and other enumerated or similar motions, the Rules ensure that cases move forward more promptly.

For litigants and counsel, the key takeaway is to be fully prepared to present all possible defenses in the Answer, to avoid motions that the Rules clearly prohibit, and to observe deadlines meticulously. Any deviation from these guidelines risks outright denial of the motion, possible sanctions, and unnecessary delays that undermine the very purpose of the remedial rules.

Disclaimer Reminder: This discussion is not a substitute for personalized legal advice. For specific concerns, consult with a licensed Philippine lawyer or your legal counsel to ensure compliance with the current rules and jurisprudence.