This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-28 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The proper recourse of an aggrieved party to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals is to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, if the error subject of the recourse is one of jurisdiction, or the act complained of was granted by a court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the said Rules.[17] These few significant exceptions are: when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates, or when the broader interests of justice so require, or when the writs issued are null, or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.[18] | |||||
|
2005-12-13 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or over the subject of the action or suit; (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action or suit; (c) That venue is improperly laid; (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; (e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations; (g) That the complaint states no cause of action; (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; (i) That the claim on which the action or suit is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; (j) The suit is between members of the same family and no earnest efforts towards a compromise have been made." In J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Rafor,[3] this Court interpreted "within the time for pleading" to mean within the time to answer. Under Section 1, Rule 11, the time to answer is 15 days after service of summons upon the defendant. In the instant case, we note that PHILVILLE's motion to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. 122-M-90 was filed after it had filed its answer. In Heirs of Mariano Lagutan v. Icao,[4] this Court held that where a motion to dismiss was filed three months after the defendants had filed their amended answer, the said motion was filed out of time. In Ruiz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,[5] this Court ruled that where an answer has been filed, the defendant is estopped from filing a motion to dismiss. The only exceptions to the rule, as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, are: (1) where the ground raised is lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter; (2) where the complaint does not state a cause of action; (3) prescription; and (4) where the evidence that would constitute a ground for the dismissal of the complaint was discovered only during the trial. We find that none of the foregoing grounds is present in PHILVILLE's motion to dismiss. | |||||