De Guzman v. Ochoa
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Cesar and Sylvia Ochoa, represented by their attorney-in-fact Araceli Azores, initiated a lawsuit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, seeking the annulment of a contract of mortgage, a foreclosure sale, a certificate of sale, and damages. This action was filed against Josefa M. Guevarra and others, and was assigned to Branch 160 of the RTC, presided over by Judge Amelia A. Fabros. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners, Spouses Francisco and Amparo De Guzman, Jr., who were defendants in the RTC case, first filed a motion to dismiss on May 22, 2002, alleging that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. This motion was denied by the RTC on December 16, 2002. Subsequently, on March 31, 2003, the petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was fatally defective due to a non-compliant certification against forum shopping. The RTC denied this second motion on February 12, 2004, and further denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on December 29, 2004. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied on August 11, 2005. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are now before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's denial of their second motion to dismiss. The core of their argument is that the complaint was fatally defective because the verification and certification against forum shopping were not executed by the principal parties but by their attorney-in-fact, Araceli Azores, whose authority did not extend to filing such actions. They argue that this defect is jurisdictional and should have been considered by the RTC motu proprio, notwithstanding the Omnibus Motion Rule, as it was not waived by their failure to raise it in the first motion to dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of petitioners' second motion to dismiss by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) constituted grave abuse of discretion. Whether the RTC should have dismissed the complaint motu proprio due to a defective verification and certification against forum shopping; and whether the issue of defective verification and certification against forum shopping was deemed waived under the Omnibus Motion Rule. On the authority of the attorney-in-fact.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the nature of the denial of a motion to dismiss: The Court reiterated that an order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, which generally cannot be reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari. Such a remedy is reserved for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The petitioners failed to convincingly demonstrate that the RTC's denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, the Court sustained the CA's ruling. On the application of the Omnibus Motion Rule and whether the defects were jurisdictional: The Court explained that a motion to dismiss is considered an omnibus motion. Under Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, all objections available at the time of filing must be raised in the first motion to dismiss; otherwise, they are deemed waived. The grounds of defective verification and certification against forum shopping were available to the petitioners when they filed their first motion to dismiss. By raising them only in their second motion, these grounds were deemed waived, as they did not fall under the exceptions to the Omnibus Motion Rule (lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, or prescription). The Court clarified that the requirement for verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Its purpose is to assure the truth and good faith of the pleader, and the court may allow correction or proceed even if unverified if justice requires. Similarly, the rule on certification against forum shopping, while obligatory, is not jurisdictional. Its non-compliance is a ground for dismissal, but only upon motion and after hearing, as stipulated in Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the RTC was not mandated to dismiss the complaint motu proprio based on these grounds. On the authority of the attorney-in-fact: While the petitioners argued that the attorney-in-fact lacked the authority to file the certification, the Court's primary reasoning focused on the waiver of the issue under the Omnibus Motion Rule and the non-jurisdictional nature of the defect. The Court did not delve deeply into the extent of the attorney-in-fact's powers in relation to the certification itself, as the procedural bar was dispositive.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and generally cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari, unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Objections not raised in the first motion to dismiss are deemed waived under the Omnibus Motion Rule, except for those concerning lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription. Defects in verification and certification of non-forum shopping are formal, not jurisdictional, and may be waived.