UP Law BGC Eve 2024 JOS Managing Builders v.

UOBP
Civil Procedure Motion to Dismiss (formerly Rule 16)
SUMMARY
In an annulment of sale, a writ of preliminary injunction was
issued against UOBP. However, it later sold the subject
property, prompting JOS to file a contempt case. After UOBP
submitted an Answer Ad Cautelam, the CA reversed the
annulment, prompting UOBP to file a motion to dismiss the
contempt case. SC ruled that it was proper for the court to give
due course to the motion to dismiss since the CA reversal was a
new ground for dismissal.
2016 Jardeleza
DOCTRINE
The period to file a motion to dismiss depends upon the
circumstances of the case. Even after an answer has been filed,
Court may allow a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the
following grounds: Lack of jurisdiction, Litis pendentia, Lack of
cause of action, and Discovery during trial of evidence that
would constitute a ground for dismissal.

FACTS

 RTC QC (Annulment case, Br. 98)

o JOS Managing Builders and Olaguer filed a Petition for Annulment of Extrajudicial Sale against UOBP and de Guzman.
o 2000: Br. 98 issued a writ of preliminary injunction (2000 writ) against UOBP prohibiting it from consolidating the title to
the properties or committing any acts prejudicial to JOS.
o (Meanwhile… May 5, 2008: UOBP sold the properties to Onshore Strategic Assets.)
o June 12, 2008: Br. 98 annulled the extrajudicial foreclosure and public auction sale.
o UOBP appealed to CA.
o November 29, 2013: CA reversed the annulment.
 RTC QC (Contempt case, Br. 220, later Br. 87)
o Because of the 2008 sale, JOS filed a Petition to Declare Respondents in Contempt of Court. The sale constitutes
indirect contempt of court because it violated the 2000 writ issued by Br. 98.
o First MTD: UOBP filed Motion to Dismiss for failure to state cause of action and JOS did not plead that the sale was
prejudicial to them. JOS also did not allege that UOBP consolidated title to the properties.
o Br. 220 denied the MTD.
o UOBP also appealed this to CA. CA dismissed its appeal.
o UOBP filed an Answer Ad Cautelam contending that the 2000 writ merely prohibited them from consolidating the title
and did not enjoin them from selling to any person. The sale was not prejudicial because ROC allows transfers pendente
lite.
o This contempt case was transferred to Br. 87.
o Second MTD: UOBP filed Second MTD arguing that the annulment was reversed by CA in 2013. Because of this, the
2000 writ must be set aside since the writ is merely ancillary to the case. Therefore, this contempt case had become
moot and academic.  Issue 2
o Br. 87 dismissed the contempt case since it is now moot and academic, writ being automatically terminated after the
reversal by CA.  Issue 3
o JOS filed Motion for Reconsideration.
o UOBP filed a Motion to Expunge the MR for violation of the 3-day notice rule under Rule 15, Sec. 4. The hearing for
JOS’ MR was set on Nov. 7 but the only receive notice no Nov. 6.
o Br. 87 granted the Motion to Expunge.  Issue 1
 SC
o JOS files petition with SC for the following issues:
 Issue 1: Br. 87 erred when it expunged JOS’ MR.
 Issue 2: Br. 87 erred when it gave due course to the Second MTD filed after the Answer Ad Cautelam.
 UOBP filed the 2nd MTD 1 year and 6 months after it filed the Answer Ad Cautelam.
 This is a violation of Rule 16, Sec. 1: a motion to dismiss must be filed “within the time for but
before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim.”
 Issue 3: Br. 87 erred in dismissing the Contempt case.

RATIO

W/N it was proper for the trial court to give due course to the Motion to Dismiss? (Issue 2, topic in syllabus)

YES. Court may allow defendant to file a motion to dismiss of there is a discovery during trial of evidence that would
constitute a ground for dismissal. This motion may be based on an event that transpired after an answer was filed.

 In Obando v. Figueras: the period to file a motion to dismiss depends upon the circumstances of the case. Even after an
answer has been filed, the Court has allowed a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the following grounds: Lack of
jurisdiction, Litis pendentia, Lack of cause of action, and Discovery during trial of evidence that would constitute a ground
for dismissal.
 In this case: UOBP’s 2nd MTD was based on an event that transpired after it filed the Answer Ad Cautelam (which is the 2013
reversal of annulment by CA).

Other issues
 Issue 1: RTC erred when it granted UOBP’s Motion to Expunge MR. Even if UOBP only received the notice of the Nov. 7
hearing on Nov. 6, Br. 87 actually reset the hearing to Dec. 5. Therefore, UOBP’s right to due process as not violated.
 Issue 3: The dissolution of the 2000 writ did not make the Contempt Case moot and academic. The sale made by UOBP was
made while the 2000 writ subsisting. This is the subject matter of the Contempt Case. The reversal of the annulment by CA will
not protect UOBP from an action for violation of the 2000 writ which was in effect at the time of the sale.

FALLO
The Br. 87 case is remanded to the court. The case is not yet moot and academic.