Douglas Lu Ym vs.
Gertrudes Nabua
G.R. NO. 161309
February 23, 2005
Facts:
 On August 16, 2002, the petitioner filed an Omnibus
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint based on
the following grounds:
A. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by a prior judgment
or by the statute of limitations {Rule 16, Sec. 1 (f)}.
B. Plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue and/or
do not have a cause of action {Rule 16, Sec. 1(d)
and/or 1(g)}.
C. Fraud and equity.
D. Docket fees not deemed paid, therefore, a
condition precedent for filing the claim has not
been complied with {Rule 16, Sec. 1(j)}.
 On August 29, 2002, the private respondents filed
their Opposition to the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint alleging the following:
1. Plaintiffs' claims are not barred by prior
judgment nor by statute of limitations;
2. Plaintiffs have the legal capacity to sue and have
valid cause of action;
3. Docket fees have been paid by plaintiffs.
 lower court - Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint denied and should go to a full blown trial
 Petitioner filed a Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition Under Rule 65 contending
that the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying his motion to dismiss.
 The appellate court dismissed the petition holding
that the assailed orders may only be reviewed in the
ordinary course of law by an appeal from the
judgment after trial.
 With the denial of his Motion for
Reconsideration, petitioner is now before this Court
seeking a review of the appellate
court's Decision and Resolution claiming that the
denial of his motion to dismiss was a disguised
deferment of the resolution of the said motion and
that the trial court failed to discuss and address each
of the grounds cited therein contrary to the express
mandate of Section 3, Rule 16 of the Rules.
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff may petition for certiorari
as a remedy for the denial of the Motion to Dismiss.
Ruling: Yes.
 An order denying a motion to dismiss is an
interlocutory order which neither terminates nor
finally disposes of a case, as it leaves something to
be done by the court before the case is finally
decided on the merits.
 General rule: is that the denial of a
motion to dismiss cannot be
questioned in a special civil action
for certiorari which is a remedy
designed to correct errors of
jurisdiction and not errors of
judgment. Neither can a denial of a
motion to dismiss be the subject of
an appeal unless and until a final
judgment or order is rendered.
 Exception: In order to justify the
grant of the extraordinary remedy
of certiorari, the denial of the
motion to dismiss must have been
tainted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
 Sec. 3, Rule 16 of the Rules provides:
Sec. 3. Resolution of motion. 'After the hearing, the
court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the
motion or order the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the
motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is
not indubitable.
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and
distinctly the reasons therefor.
 Under this provision, there are three (3) courses of
action which the trial court may take in resolving a
motion to dismiss, i.e., to grant, to deny, or to allow
amendment of the pleading. Deferment of the
resolution of a motion to dismiss if the ground relied
upon is not indubitable is now disallowed in view of
the provision requiring presentation of all available
arguments and evidence. Thus, there is no longer
any need to defer action until the trial as the
evidence presented, and such additional evidence as
the trial court may require, would already enable the
trial court to rule upon the dubitability of the ground
alleged.2
 Having raised substantial grounds for dismissal, the
trial court should have, at the very least, specified
which of these grounds require a full-blown trial.
This would have enabled the defendant to
determine the errors that should be the subject of
his motion for reconsideration or Petition
for Certiorari, and given the appellate court
sufficient basis for determining the propriety of the
denial of the motion to dismiss.
 In this regard, judges should be reminded to take
pains in crafting their orders, stating therein clearly
and comprehensively the reasons for their issuance,
which are necessary for the full understanding of the
action taken.
 However, while it was error for the appellate court
to rule that the trial court did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to
dismiss, it does not necessarily follow that the
motion to dismiss should have been granted.Ï
 the case is REMANDED to the RTC