REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
MANILA CITY, BRANCH 08
FELICISIMO R. COLAS, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Civil Case No. 12345

For Specific Performance with
Damages

ARNEL ALVARDO,
Defendant,
x------------------------------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT, through counsel and to his Honorable Court,
respectfully move for the dismissal of the complaint in the above
entitled case, on the following:
GROUNDS
I.

THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO

JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
OF THE CLAIM;

II.

THAT THE VENUE IS IMPROPERLY LAID;

III.

THAT THE PLEADING ASSERTING THE CLAIM

STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION;

DISCUSSION OF GROUND
I.
Paragraph 1, Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended by R.A. 7691, provides as follows:

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts in civil cases. Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:

(1)

Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil

actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,

including the grant of provisional remedies in proper
cases, where the value of the personal property, estate, or
amount of the demand does not exceed Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or, in Metro Manila where
such personal property, estate, or amount of the demand
does

not

exceed

Four

hundred

thousand

pesos

(P400,000.00) exclusive of interest damages of whatever

kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the
amount of which must be specifically alleged: Provided,
That where there are several claims or causes of action
between the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the
totality of the claims in all the causes of action,

irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of

the same or different transactions;

Since the above quoted rule has set the value of the amount
which this Honorable Court has Jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the amount involve in the complaint filed by the Plaintiff, was one
million and five hundred thousand pesos (1,500,00.00). Which clearly
shows that the amount involve was more than Four hundred thousand
pesos (400,000.00) in which the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction
over the claim filed by the Plaintiff as provided in:

Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R. A. 7691

provides as follows:

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases Regional Trial Court

shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

(1) In all civil action in which the subject of the litigation

Incapable of pecuniary estimation.

(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of

interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses, and cost or the value of the property in controversy exceeds

Three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00) or, in such other case in

Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the abovementioned
items exceeds Four Hundred thousand pesos (400,000.00).

In filing the instant complaint with this Honorable Court,

plaintiff wrongly based the amount alleged in the complaint of one
million five hundred thousand pesos (1,500,000.00) under the
Metropolitan Trial Court instead it must be filed in the Regional Trial
Court because the amount exceeds Four hundred thousand peosos
(400,000.00).
II.

Under paragraph C, section 1 of Rule 16 of 1997 Rules of Court

provides that a complaint in a civil case cognizable by the Regional
Trial Court should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the
place where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the option
of the plaintiff. The complaint in the above-entitled case expressly
alleges that the plaintiff is a resident of Las Pias City while the
defendant is a resident of Pasay City. The Plaintiff through his
counsel filed the suit with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila City. Hence, venue has been improperly laid.

III.

Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action.

As Section 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, defined by the rules, a
cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right
of another. It is the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by
the defendant in violation of the primary right of the plaintiff. To be
sufficient, a cause of action must appear from the face of the
complaint. In the case at bar, defendants respectfully submit that the
complaint is wanting on this particular matter.

The Plaintiff failed to state the cause of action under the statute
of frauds, one simple, albeit essential, question need to be answered,
to wit: Does the amount involve worth 1,500,000.00 in the complaint
filed by the Plaintiff verbally contracted with defendant need to be in
writing to be enforceable?

Under Art. 1403 (2) of the New Civil Code of the

Philippines require that contracts involving the following
should be written down:
An agreement where the terms are to be complied
with a year after the agreement;
A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or
miscarriage of another;
An agreement made in consideration of marriage,
other than a mutual promise to marry;

 An agreement for the sale of goods worth more than

PHP 500;
A lease agreement for real property, if the lease is
longer than one year;
A sale of real property;
A representation to the credit of a third person.

In their complaint, plaintiff alleged that, Arnel Alvarado the

defendant herein, verbally contracted with FELICISIMO R. COLAS,
Jr. the plaintiff herein, to provide the plumbing and electrical design
project located at Malacaang grounds for the amount of one million
five hundred thousand pesos (1,500,000.00) representing the
plaintiffs professional fees for his service. Under the Statute of
Frauds requires that some contracts be written down; this statute does
not deprive the parties of the right to contract with respect to the
matters therein involved, but merely regulates the formalities of the
contract necessary to render it enforceable. The effect of
unenforceable contract it cannot be enforced in court or sued upon by
reason of defects provided by law and unless they are ratified
according to law. The purpose of the statute of Fraud is prevent fraud
and perjury in the enforcement of obligations.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the instant action

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the venue
is improperly laid, there is a failure to state the cause of action.

Caloocan City, May 21, 2014.

Dominique Janzen C. Tan
Counsel for Petitioners
136 7th Ave. 9th St. Caloocan City
PTR No. 8745612/2-10-14/C.C.
Roll of attorneys No. 88888
IBP No. 888888/2-10-14/Pasay City
MCLE No. 8765432/2-10-14/Pasig City
NOTICE OF HEARING
BRANCH CLERK OF CORT
MTC- Manila City Branch 08
ATTY. MANUEL CASTRO
Counsel for Plaintiff
GREETINGS:
Please take notice that the foregoing motion will be submitted
for the consideration of this Honorable Court on Friday , May 23,
2014 at 9:30 oclock in the morning.
DOMINIQUE JANZEN C. TAN
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. MANUEL CASTRO
Counsel for Plaintiff
Suite 503, 5F, Philam Life Building,
U.N. Ave. Ermita Manila City.
E X PLAN AT I O N

Copies of the foregoing motion were filed with this Honorable

Court and served upon plantiffs counsel thru AIR 21 and registered
mail due to distance.

DOMINIQUE JANZEN C. TAN