Jason A. Ampong
Jason A. Ampong
Jason A. Ampong
AMPONG
Remedial Law Review
What happened to each of the grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the
old 199 Rules on Civil Procedure?
The grounds for a motion to dismiss under the Old Rules are transposed in the New
Rules and can be raised as affirmative defenses.
The following grounds for motion to dismiss are transposed to Sec. 12, Rule 15 of the
Amended Rules of Civil Procedure, to state:
Sec. 12. Prohibited motions. – The following motions shall not be allowed:
Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim;
2. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause; and
3. That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute
of limitations.
Further, the following can no longer be raised as grounds for motion to dismiss, but are
now considered as affirmative defenses found in Sec. 12, Rule 8, to wit:
a. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
b. That the venue is improperly laid;
c. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
d. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
e. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
Furthermore, Sec. 13 of Rule 15 of the Amended Rules considers the following as
affirmative defenses which shall bar the refiling of the same action or claim:
1. That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been paid,
waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished; and
2. That the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the
provisions of the statute of frauds.
In Boiser v. Judge Aguirre, the Court held that “a motion without notice of hearing is
pro forma, a mere scrap of paper. It presents no question which the court could decide.
The court has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no right to receive it.