Colmenar involving the application of the 2019 Amended Rules on motu proprio resolution by the court of the affirmative defenses. Recently, the Supreme Court rendered a decision on the case of Colmenar v. This provision was introduced to deter the abuse of legal remedies such as petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus that delay the progress of legal proceedings. Interestingly, the denial of affirmative defenses may not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration or petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus however, these may be among the issues or matters raised in an appeal after a judgment on its merits (Section 12 (e), Rule 8). The affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court within thirty days from the termination of the summary hearing (Section 12 (d), Rule 8). However, the original affirmative defenses under Section 5(b), first paragraph, Rule 6 (such as fraud, release, payment, illegality, estoppel, and former recovery, among others), may be the subject of a summary hearing within fifteen days from the filing of an Answer. The desire to expedite the proceedings without depriving the defendant of the chance to dismiss a frivolous and baseless complaint at the first instance, was achieved when the trial court was given the power to motu proprio resolve the affirmative defenses in the Answer within thirty days from its filing. With limited grounds for a Motion to Dismiss, the defendant/s will be more inclined to file an Answer resulting in the joinder of issues and leading the parties to pre-trial. These are the same grounds for which the court can, motu proprio, or in its own initiative, dismiss the case (Section 1, Rule 9). The remaining grounds for a Motion to Dismiss were limited to the most essential. The deleted grounds for a Motion to Dismiss, and which are now just affirmative defenses, are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant (b) improper venue for the action (c) lack of a plaintiff’s legal capacity (d) a pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action and (e) instances when a condition precedent has not been complied with (Section 12 (a), Rule 8). To further curb this practice without denying the defendant the immediate dismissal of baseless actions, the 2019 Amendments deleted Rule 16 on Motion to Dismiss and transferred the other grounds to Section 12, Rule 8 as affirmative defenses, in addition to the existing affirmative defenses in Section 5, Rule 6. This practice had for decades delayed the conduct of the proceedings in the trial courts. Once denied, a Motion for Reconsideration may be filed, and if further denied a Petition for Certiorari to the next level court may be pursued. The amended Rules limited the grounds for a Motion to Dismiss to stop its indiscriminate filing. The 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a Motion to Dismiss is a prohibited pleading except on the grounds that: (a) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim (b) there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause and (c) the cause of action (claim) is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations (prescription) (Section 12, Rule 15). It is important to note that the procedural steps to be undertaken by the defendant must be aligned with the facts of the case and his or her defense. ![]() Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship with us, and we ask that you not send us any confidential information, by email or otherwise, without first obtaining the consent of one of our attorneys.When a party that is a defendant to a civil case is served with summons and a complaint, the first thing that his or her lawyer needs to decide on is whether to file a Motion to Dismiss or an Answer. Our publications' mailing or digital distribution is not intended to create, and receipt of them does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Please use the "Contact Us" form on this website to request reprint permission for any of our publications. ![]() Lamont may not be quoted or referred to without our prior written consent. Publications from the Law Offices of Peter J. Nothing on our website should be construed as legal advice for any specific situation or circumstance. Lamont, is not legal advice and is intended for general information. The material on this site, including publications from the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont for the convenience of visitors to our site. ![]() ![]() This website provides general information about the Law Offices of Peter J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |