G.R. No.

168979, December 02, 2013

REBECCA PACAÑA–CONTRERAS AND ROSALIE PACAÑA, Petitioners,

v.
ROVILA WATER SUPPLY, INC., EARL U. KOKSENG, LILIA TORRES, DALLA P.
ROMANILLOS AND MARISA GABUYA, Respondents.
(Rule 16, Sec. 1)

FACTS:

The petitioners claimed that their family has long been known in the community to be
engaged in water supply business; they operated the “Rovila Water Supply”. The petitioners
alleged that Lilia was a former trusted employee in the family business who hid business records
and ransacked the family files. She allegedly barred the members of the Pacaña family from
operating their business and she claims ownership over it. The respondents allegedly used the
name of Lourdes as one of the incorporators and made it appear in the SEC documents that the
family business was operated in a place other than the Pacaña residence. They also fraudulently
appropriated the collections and payments.

The petitioners filed the complaint in their own names although Rosalie was authorized
by Lourdes through a sworn declaration and SPA. On September 26, 2000, Lourdes died and the
petitioners amended their complaint and on the following month Luciano also died. Since
Lourdes and Luciano died the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that there was
no cause of action, since the petitioners are not the real parties in interest to institute and
prosecute the case and that they violated the rule on substitution of parties. However it was
denied, hence, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 invoking grave abuse
of discretion in the denial of their motion to dismiss.

Petitioner raised the issue that the motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of
action was not timely filed thus waived.

ISSUE:

Whether the motion to dismiss by the respondent was timely raised.

RULING:

No. Applying Rule 16 of the Rules of Court which provides for the grounds for the
dismissal of a civil case, the respondents’ grounds for dismissal fall under Section 1(g) and (j),
Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

The first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides that a motion to
dismiss should be filed within the time for, but before the filing of, the answer to the complaint
or pleading asserting a claim. Equally important to this provision is Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court which states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived, except for the following grounds: 1) the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2) litis pendencia; 3) res judicata; and 4) prescription.

Therefore, the grounds not falling under these four exceptions may be considered as
waived in the event that they are not timely invoked. As the respondents’ motion to dismiss was
based on the grounds which should be timely invoked, material to the resolution of this case is
the period within which they were raised.

Both the RTC and the CA found that the motion to dismiss was only filed after the filing
of the answer and after the pre–trial had been concluded. In the present petition, the petitioners
reiterate that there was a blatant non–observance of the rules when the respondents did not
amend their answer to invoke the grounds for dismissal which were raised only during the pre–
trial and, subsequently, in the subject motion to dismiss.