HW3 (QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS)

RULE 16: MOTION TO DISMISS

(Guillermo v. Philippine Information Agency, G.R. No. 223751, March 15, 2017)

1. How to determine the sufficiency of a cause of action in a motion to dismiss?

- To determine the sufficiency of a cause of action in a motion to dismiss, only the facts alleged in the
complaint should be considered, in relation to whether its prayer may be granted. To sufficiently state a
cause of action, the Complaint should have alleged facts showing that the trial court could grant its
prayer based on the strength of its factual allegations.

(Alvarado v. Ayala Land, G.R. No. 208426, September 20, 2017)

2. What are the two (2) categories of motion to dismiss that may be recognized under the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure?

First, those that must be filed ahead of an answer and second, those that may be entertained even after an
answer has been filed. Motions to dismiss under the first category may plead any of the 10 grounds under Rule
16, Section 1. Those under the second category may only plead four (4) of Rule 16, Section 1's 10 grounds:
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription. In addition to these
four (4) grounds, motions to dismiss under the second category may also plead lack of cause of action and
other grounds that may only be made known after the answer was filed.

(Shell Foundation, Inc. v. Tomas M. Fredeluces, G.R. No. 174333, April 20, 2016)

3. What are the grounds for res judicata?

When there is more than one suit pending between the same parties for the same cause of action, litis pendentia
exists and a motion to dismiss may be filed on this ground.

RULE 45: APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

(Crispino v. Tansay, G.R. No. 184466, December 5, 2016)

1. Is a special civil action for certiorari only the remedy against interlocutory order?
- No. A special civil action for certiorari is not the only remedy against an interlocutory order, since an
interlocutory order may be appealed in an appeal of the judgment itself. Unlike a "final" judgment or
order, which is appealable, an "interlocutory" order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part
of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.

(Noell Whessoe, Inc v. Independent Testing Consultant, Inc., G.R. No. 199851, November 07, 2018)

2: Is an appeal a matter of right?

- No. An Appeal is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion. This Court may, in its discretion,
entertain questions of fact if they fall under certain exceptions. But the presence of any of the exceptions
to the general rule, however, does not automatically place the case under this Court's review. This Court
 explained in Pascual v. Burgos that the party claiming an exception "must demonstrate and prove" that a
review of the factual findings is necessary.

(Pascual vs. Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016)

3. What are the exceptions to the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari?

The jurisprudence has provided several exceptions to these rules, exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and
proved by the parties so this court may evaluate and review the facts of the case. Exceptions to the rule. At
present, there are 10 recognized exceptions that were first listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.:

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;

(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;

(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;

(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;

(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;

(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;

(7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;

(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;

(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by
the respondents; and

(10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is
contradicted by the evidence on record. In any event, even in such cases, this court retains full discretion on
whether to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.