Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
15 views1 page

Omnibus Motion Rule in De Guzman Case

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a civil case against them, alleging the complaint did not state a cause of action. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss alleging a defect in the certification against forum shopping. The trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed that under the "omnibus motion rule", any defects not raised in the first motion to dismiss were waived. The Supreme Court held that a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion that must raise all available objections, so any objections not included in the first motion are deemed waived.

Uploaded by

Lauriz Esquivel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views1 page

Omnibus Motion Rule in De Guzman Case

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss a civil case against them, alleging the complaint did not state a cause of action. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss alleging a defect in the certification against forum shopping. The trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed that under the "omnibus motion rule", any defects not raised in the first motion to dismiss were waived. The Supreme Court held that a motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion that must raise all available objections, so any objections not included in the first motion are deemed waived.

Uploaded by

Lauriz Esquivel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

De Guzman v.

Ochoa
648 SCRA 677

Facts:
Respondent spouses Cesar and Sylvia Ochoa, through respondent Araceli Azones, ostensibly acting as
attorney-in-fact, filed an action in the RTC seeking the annulment of contract of mortgage, foreclosure
sale, certificate of sale and damages.

The petitioners as defendants in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the sole ground that the
complaint did not state a cause of action. RTC denied the petition and at the same time set the civil case
for pre-trial, directing the parties to submit their briefs. Petitioner filed a second motion to dismiss,
alleging that the certification against forum shopping was not executed by the parties themselves.
Respondents opposed the second motion to dismiss, RTC agreed with respondents. Petitioners filed MR
but RTC denied. Petitioner went to CA via a petition for certiorari. CA denied for lack of merit, in its
decision, it agreed with the RTC that following the omnibus motion rule, the defects of the complaint
pointed out by the petitioners were deemed waived when they failed to raise it in their first motion to
dismiss.

Issue:
Whether the ‘omnibus motion rule’ will apply.

Held:
Yes. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither terminates the case nor
finally disposes of it as it leaves something to be done by the court before the case is finally decided on
the merits. An order denying such may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an appeal from
the judgment after trial.
Only in exceptional cases where the denial of the motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion that the court allows the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.
A motion to dismiss is an omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the complaint. For this
reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other omnibus motion must raise and include all objections available
at the time of the filing of the motion because under Section 8, “all objections not so included shall be
deemed waived.”

You might also like