1 Pacana v. Rovila_OK

REBECCA PACAÑA-CONTRERAS and ROSALIE PACAÑA, Petitioners, v. ROVILA WATER SUPPLY, INC., EARL U KOKSENG, LILIA TORRES, DALLA P. ROMANILLOS and MARISSA GABUYA, Respondents. G.R. No. 168979

December 2, 2013

FACTS: Petitioners Rebecca Pacaña-Contreras and Rosalie Pacaña, children of Lourdes Teves Pacaña and Luciano Pacaña, filed the present case against Rovila Inc., Earl, Lilia, Dalla and Marisa for accounting and damages. The petitioners filed the complaint in their own names although Rosalie was authorized by Lourdes through a sworn declaration and special power of attorney (SPA). The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds, among others, that the petitioners are not the real parties in interest to institute and prosecute the case and that they have no valid cause of action against the respondents. The RTC denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss as well as respondents’ motion for reconsideration. The respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Court of Appeals, invoking grave abuse of discretion in the denial of their motion to dismiss. The CA granted the petition and ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion as the petitioners filed the complaint and the amended complaint as attorneys-in-fact of their parents. As such, they are not the real parties in interest and cannot bring an action in their own names. The petitioners filed the present petition and argued, among others, that in annulling the interlocutory orders, the CA unjustly allowed the motion to dismiss which did not conform to the rules. Specifically, the motion was not filed within the time for, but before the filing of, the answer to the amended complaint, nor were the grounds raised in the answer. Citing Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, the respondents are deemed to have waived these grounds, as correctly held by the RTC. The respondents argued that the grounds invoked in their motion to dismiss were timely raised, pursuant to Section 2, paragraphs g and i, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, the nature and purposes of the pre-trial include, among others, the dismissal of the action, should a valid ground therefor be found to exist; and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action. Finally, the special civil action of certiorari was the proper remedy in assailing the order of the RTC. ISSUE: Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a proper remedy for a denial of a motion to dismiss attended by grave abuse of discretion. RULING: YES. We find the petition meritorious. In Barrazona v. RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City, the Court held that while an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to address an order of denial made without or in excess of jurisdiction. The writ of certiorari is granted to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss in the present case based on failure to state a cause of action was not timely filed and was thus waived. Rule 9 of the Rules of Court which states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for the following grounds: 1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2) litis pendencia; 3) res judicata; and 4) prescription. Therefore, the grounds not falling under these four exceptions may be considered as waived in the event that they are not timely invoked. As the respondents’ motion to dismiss was based on the grounds which should be timely invoked, material to the resolution of this case is the period within which they were raised. Both the RTC and the CA found that the motion to dismiss was only filed after the filing of the answer and after the pre-trial had been concluded. The Court cannot uphold the dismissal of the present case based on the grounds invoked by the respondents which they have waived for failure to invoke them within the period prescribed by the Rules. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders denying the respondents’ motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration.