To Dismiss

To Dismiss | Motions | PRACTICAL EXERCISES

COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW
(With reference to the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and other relevant rules and principles in remedial law, legal ethics, and legal forms.)

I. OVERVIEW

A motion to dismiss is a pleading (or, in some cases, a motion) by which a defendant (or respondent) seeks the dismissal or termination of an action or proceeding at its early stage—often before the filing of an answer or before full-blown trial. In Philippine civil procedure, the concept and use of motions to dismiss have evolved, especially in light of the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC), which significantly revised the rules governing pleadings and motions.

In criminal proceedings, the counterpart of a motion to dismiss is typically a motion to quash the Information. However, this discussion focuses primarily on civil cases (i.e., where a complaint is filed and the defendant moves to dismiss).

II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS IN CIVIL CASES

A. Historical Context (Before the 2019 Amendments)

Under the old rules (pre-2019 amendments), Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly allowed the defendant to file a motion to dismiss on various grounds before filing an answer. Common grounds included:

  1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
  2. Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant;
  3. Improper venue;
  4. Plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue;
  5. Litis pendentia (pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause);
  6. Res judicata;
  7. Prescription;
  8. Failure to state a cause of action, among others.

If the motion to dismiss was denied, the defendant would then be required to file an answer. If granted, the case would be dismissed, subject to a possible motion for reconsideration or appeal, depending on the nature of the dismissal.

B. The 2019 Amendments: Key Changes

The 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure introduced a “no-motion” or “limited-motions” principle. In general, many grounds for dismissal that were previously raised via a motion to dismiss must now be raised as affirmative defenses in the answer. The rationale behind these amendments is to expedite court proceedings and reduce the number of interlocutory motions.

  1. Rule 15 (Motions) and Rule 16 (Motion to Dismiss) Are Substantially Revised

    • Under the current rules, Rule 15 enumerates the kinds of motions and sets requirements for form, notice, and hearing.
    • Rule 16 of the old rules was largely repealed/revised. Instead, the concept of “affirmative defenses” under Rule 8, Section 12 and other relevant sections now governs many of the previous grounds for a motion to dismiss.

  2. Affirmative Defenses Instead of Motion to Dismiss

    • Grounds such as:
      • Lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant;
      • Improper venue;
      • Plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue;
      • Litis pendentia;
      • Res judicata;
      • Prescription;
      • Failure to state a cause of action;
      • Etc.
        must now be pleaded as affirmative defenses in the defendant’s answer (Rule 8, Sec. 12).
    • If the court upholds any of these affirmative defenses, it may dismiss the case outright or order the appropriate relief without requiring a separate motion to dismiss.

  3. Exception: Limited Grounds for Filing a Motion to Dismiss
    Despite the shift toward raising defenses in the answer, there are still certain circumstances where a motion to dismiss may be permitted. Typically, these include:

    • Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (although the Supreme Court has emphasized that this can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, and the court can dismiss motu proprio).
    • Pending or prior action (litis pendentia) when very clear on the face of the complaint—some courts allow an early resolution via motion to dismiss, but often it is now handled as an affirmative defense.
    • Improper venue when clearly apparent.
    • Failure to comply with mandatory requirements (e.g., Barangay Conciliation, if applicable).

    The rules in practice can vary slightly by court interpretation; however, in general, the preference is to raise these issues in the answer, unless the court specifically allows or the rule specifically authorizes a motion to dismiss.

III. GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL IN CIVIL CASES (CURRENT FRAMEWORK)

Even though the approach has changed to primarily raising these grounds as affirmative defenses in the answer, understanding the underlying reasons a complaint may be dismissed remains crucial. Below is a summarized list of grounds that can lead to dismissal—whether by a motion or via affirmative defenses:

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

    • The action must be filed with the court that has the legal power to hear the type of controversy involved.
    • If the court has no jurisdiction, the complaint is dismissed outright. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and cannot be waived.

  2. Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Defendant

    • Typically arises from improper service of summons or other defects in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the defendant.
    • Under the current rules, you normally raise it as an affirmative defense.

  3. Improper Venue

    • Venue rules are set by law or the Rules of Court. If the complaint is filed in the wrong venue, and venue is not just a matter of convenience but mandatory, the case may be dismissed or transferred.

  4. Plaintiff’s Lack of Legal Capacity to Sue

    • For instance, if the plaintiff is a minor or incompetent without a judicially appointed representative, or if a corporation has lost its corporate personality.

  5. Litis Pendentia (Lis Pendens)

    • An action is already pending between the same parties involving the same cause of action. The second action is dismissible to avoid forum shopping and conflicting judgments.

  6. Res Judicata

    • The cause of action has already been finally adjudicated by a competent court in a previous case involving the same parties and the same subject matter.

  7. Prescription

    • The action is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.

  8. Failure to State a Cause of Action

    • Even assuming all allegations are true, there is no legal basis to hold the defendant liable.
    • This must be apparent on the face of the complaint, without need for extraneous evidence.

  9. Non-compliance with a Condition Precedent

    • E.g., failure to undergo mandatory barangay conciliation under R.A. 7160 when required, or failure to comply with other statutory preconditions.

  10. Other Grounds Provided by Law

  • In special cases (e.g., some environmental cases, election cases, probate, or other special proceedings), specific rules may provide additional grounds.

IV. PROCEDURAL ASPECTS

A. When and How to File

  1. Motion to Dismiss (Pre-2019)

    • Filed before filing an answer.
    • The period to file the motion to dismiss was the same as the period to file an answer (15 days from service of summons in ordinary cases).

  2. Answer with Affirmative Defenses (Post-2019)

    • Instead of filing a motion to dismiss, a defendant will generally file an answer.
    • The answer must include all negative defenses and affirmative defenses.
    • Affirmative defenses must specifically allege any ground that would warrant dismissal or require the court’s immediate attention (e.g., prescription, res judicata, lack of jurisdiction, etc.).
    • The court will resolve these defenses in a pre-trial or in a separate order if warranted.

  3. Period to File Answer under the 2019 Amendments

    • In ordinary civil actions, the defendant typically has 30 calendar days (instead of 15) from receipt of summons and complaint to file the answer (unless otherwise specified by the revised rules).
    • If a motion to dismiss is still allowed under exceptional circumstances and is denied, the defendant must file the answer within the balance of the period to answer or within another period provided by the court.

B. Hearing and Resolution

  • Generally, motions require notice and hearing (Rule 15).
  • For motions to dismiss still recognized, the court may set the matter for hearing if there is a need to receive evidence on any factual question. Otherwise, the court can resolve it on the basis of the pleadings.
  • Under the current “no-motions” regime, the court often rules on affirmative defenses without a separate hearing, especially if the ground is apparent on the face of the complaint and supporting documents.

C. Effect of Grant or Denial

  1. Grant of the Motion / Affirmative Defense

    • The complaint is dismissed, either with prejudice or without prejudice, depending on the ground.
    • Dismissal with prejudice bars the refiling of the complaint (e.g., res judicata).
    • Dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiff to refile the case (e.g., improper venue, lack of capacity that can be cured, or failure to comply with a condition precedent that can still be satisfied).

  2. Denial of the Motion / Overruling of Affirmative Defense

    • The defendant is generally directed to file an answer or proceed with the case if an answer is not yet filed.
    • Interlocutory orders (like denial of a motion to dismiss) are typically not immediately appealable under the general rules (appeal is usually after final judgment, except in rare instances where a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 might be pursued).

V. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS (LEGAL ETHICS)

  1. Avoid Dilatory Tactics

    • Lawyers are duty-bound to avoid filing frivolous motions to dismiss purely to delay proceedings. This can result in disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Candor and Good Faith

    • Lawyers must ensure that the grounds cited are legitimate, well-founded in fact and law, and not merely a means to harass or oppress the opposing party.
    • The Supreme Court has frowned on blatant forum-shopping or re-litigation of matters already resolved.

  3. Duty to Clients vs. Duty to the Court

    • An advocate must zealously represent the client’s interests but always within the bounds of the law, court rules, and ethical standards.
    • Knowingly raising baseless grounds for dismissal can lead to sanctions.

  4. Proper Observance of Mandatory Periods

    • Failing to comply with deadlines or court orders concerning motions, answers, or affirmative defenses can jeopardize a client’s case and may be an ethical lapse in diligent representation.

VI. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES AND TIPS

  1. Assess Whether a Motion to Dismiss is Proper

    • Post-2019, check if the rule explicitly allows a motion to dismiss for your particular ground (e.g., lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter).
    • If it’s not clearly one of the exceptional grounds, incorporate the ground into your affirmative defenses.

  2. Draft Clear and Specific Allegations

    • Whether in the motion to dismiss or in the answer’s affirmative defenses, be precise and thorough. Provide a factual and legal basis.
    • Support allegations with pertinent documents (e.g., prior judgment for res judicata, documentary evidence showing the cause of action has prescribed, or proof of defective service).

  3. Anticipate the Court’s Focus on Expediency

    • The courts are now stricter in dealing with motions that appear intended for delay. Show the court why early dismissal is warranted to save judicial time and resources.

  4. Consider the Consequences of Dismissal

    • If you represent the plaintiff and face a motion to dismiss, consider whether you can rectify the defect (e.g., correct venue, cure capacity issues, comply with preconditions).
    • If dismissal is inevitable, examine whether it is with or without prejudice.

  5. Coordinate and Comply

    • Always observe the notice requirements. Serve copies of any motion or answer with defenses on all parties.
    • Attend scheduled hearings, if any, and be prepared to argue or submit relevant evidence.

VII. SAMPLE LEGAL FORM: MOTION TO DISMISS

Below is a general (and simplified) template for a motion to dismiss under exceptional circumstances still allowed by the current rules. Adapt it to specific grounds and court requirements.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
___ Judicial Region
Branch ___
City/Municipality of _____

[Case Title]
(e.g., Juan Dela Cruz, Plaintiff
– versus –
Pedro Santos, Defendant)

CIVIL CASE NO. ____

MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANT PEDRO SANTOS, by counsel, respectfully states:

  1. Background/Introduction.

    • Plaintiff filed the Complaint on [date], alleging [brief description]. Summons was served on Defendant on [date].

  2. Ground(s) for Dismissal.

    • Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter. The Complaint alleges a cause of action for ___, but jurisdiction over such matters is vested by law in the [e.g., Municipal Trial Court, quasi-judicial agency, etc.]. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction.
      OR
    • Failure to Comply with a Condition Precedent. The Complaint shows on its face that Plaintiff failed to undergo the required barangay conciliation proceedings under Chapter 7, Title I, Book III of R.A. 7160. This is a mandatory requirement prior to filing suit.

  3. Discussion/Argument.

    • Cite relevant legal provisions, jurisprudence, and rules.
    • Show how facts and law support the ground for dismissal.

  4. Prayer.

    • Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint be dismissed, with costs against the Plaintiff.

  5. Other Relief.

    • Defendant prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises.

[Date and Place of filing]

Respectfully submitted.

[Name of Counsel]
Counsel for Defendant
Roll No. __
IBP Lifetime No. __ / PTR No. __ / MCLE Compliance No. __
Address: _________________
Contact No.: ______________
Email: ___________________

Copy Furnished:

  • [Opposing Counsel / Plaintiff’s Counsel]
  • [Address]

Note: Under the 2019 Rules, ensure you have a basis for filing an actual motion to dismiss instead of raising the ground as an affirmative defense. Include a Notice of Hearing or appropriate compliance with the three-day notice rule (Rule 15) if a hearing is required.

VIII. CONCLUSION

  • The 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure drastically reduced the scenarios where a traditional motion to dismiss is viable.
  • Most grounds that used to be raised in a motion to dismiss are now required to be pleaded as affirmative defenses in the answer.
  • Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter remains a ground that can be raised at any stage, sometimes even as a motion if patently clear, or motu proprio by the court.
  • Legal Ethics demands that lawyers file motions to dismiss only for valid grounds, avoid dilatory tactics, and adhere to the revised rules.
  • A well-prepared legal form and thorough legal analysis are essential when filing or opposing a motion to dismiss.

Ultimately, while the label “motion to dismiss” remains part of legal parlance, it is now less frequently employed, with affirmative defenses taking center stage. Mastery of these changes, strict compliance with procedural timelines, and adherence to ethical standards are indispensable for the effective handling of motions to dismiss (or, more accurately, grounds for dismissal) under current Philippine remedial law.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login