This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-06-19 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To begin with, the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of certiorari in favor of respondent. Well settled is the rule that the special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss. The order of the trial court denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory, as it neither terminates nor finally disposes of a case and still leaves something to be done by the court before a case is finally decided on the merits.[21] Therefore, "the proper remedy in such a case is to appeal after a decision has been rendered."[22] | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations.[26] The test of sufficiency of facts alleged in the complaint constituting a cause of action lies on whether or not the court, admitting the facts alleged, could render a valid verdict in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.[27] And to sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, it must be shown that the claim for relief in the complaint does not exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite, or uncertain.[28] | |||||
|
2008-10-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[18] The appropriate course of action of the movant in such event is to file an answer[19] and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss.[20] If, later, the decision of the trial judge is adverse, the movant may then elevate on appeal the same issues raised in the motion.[21] | |||||
|
2008-01-18 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| (i) Because defendant Glasgow's bank account and deposits are related to the unlawful activities of Estafa and violation of Securities Regulation Code, as well as [to] money laundering offense as aforestated, and being the subject of covered transaction reports and eventual freeze orders, the same should properly be forfeited in favor of the government in accordance with Section 12, R.A. 9160, as amended.[11] In a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations.[12]The determination is confined to the four corners of the complaint and nowhere else.[13] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Besides, the requirement of specificity of rulings discussed above is stringently applied only to judgments and final orders. A liberal interpretation of this requirement,[21] on the other hand, may be given to an order dismissing a demurrer to evidence which has been consistently characterized by this Court as interlocutory.[22] The assailed Orders neither terminated nor finally disposed of the case as they still left something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on the merits.[23] | |||||