Motion to Dismiss Denials: Interlocutory Orders and Certiorari in Philippine Courts

When a trial court denies a motion to dismiss, the losing party often feels the urge to challenge that ruling immediately. The Supreme Court's decision in La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. v. Hon. Judge Bernardo T. Ponferrada (G.R. No. 109656, November 21, 1996) clarifies the proper remedy and the strict limits on the extraordinary writ of certiorari. This case is a practical reminder that procedural rules exist to prevent delay, and that not every adverse ruling can be appealed or challenged right away.

The Facts of the Case

The case began when several defendants reneged on a contract to sell a parcel of land in Bago City to private respondents. The buyers filed an action for "specific performance with damages" before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City in 1987. A notice of lis pendens was annotated on the sellers' title but was later cancelled when the sellers posted a bond.

In November 1991, while the case was pending, La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. purchased the same lot from the sellers. The buyers amended their complaint to implead La Tondeña, alleging that it was not a buyer in good faith.

La Tondeña moved to dismiss the amended complaint on two grounds: lack of cause of action and improper venue. It argued that it was a buyer in good faith because the lis pendens had already been cancelled, and that venue should have been in Bago City where the property is located, not Bacolod City.

The trial court denied the motion, noting that the question of good faith required presentation of evidence. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. More than three months later, La Tondeña went directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

The Issue: What Is the Remedy When a Motion to Dismiss Is Denied?

The Supreme Court framed the issue as: what remedy is available to an aggrieved party when the lower court denies a motion to dismiss?

The Court dismissed the petition outright, but not before laying down important principles that litigants and lawyers should remember.

Interlocutory Orders Are Not Immediately Appealable

The first key principle is that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory—it does not finally dispose of the case. As such, it is neither appealable until final judgment nor generally assailable through certiorari.

The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file an answer under Section 4, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, interpose the same objections as defenses, proceed to trial, and, if the decision is adverse, appeal the whole case in due time. This rule prevents piecemeal appeals and keeps litigation moving forward.

Certiorari Is an Extraordinary Remedy With Strict Limits

The second principle is that certiorari under Rule 65 is available only when the denial of the motion to dismiss constitutes grave abuse of discretion. This is a high bar. The Court found no such abuse in this case.

The trial court had deferred action on the motion, citing Section 3 of Rule 16, which allows deferment of the hearing on a motion to dismiss until the trial if the ground alleged does not appear to be indubitable. The question of whether La Tondeña was a buyer in good faith was a question of fact requiring evidence—it was far from indubitable. The Court held that deferring action was within the judge's discretion and amounted only to a provisional denial of the motion.

Timing Matters: The Petition Was Filed Too Late

Even if certiorari had been the proper remedy, the petition was filed more than three months after the petitioner received the assailed resolutions. The Court noted that three months is the reasonable period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, citing Cielo v. NLRC (193 SCRA 410 [1993]). The delay alone warranted dismissal.

Venue: A Personal Action, Not a Real Action

Finally, the Court rejected La Tondeña's argument that venue should be in Bago City. The complaint was for "specific performance with damages," not an action involving title to or ownership of real property. The buyers did not claim ownership; they recognized the sellers' title by annotating a lis pendens.

Citing Adamos v. J.M. Tuason (25 SCRA 530 [1968]), the Court held that a similar complaint for specific performance with damages involving real property is a personal action. Under the rules on venue, personal actions may be filed where the plaintiff or defendant resides, at the plaintiff's election. Thus, filing in Bacolod City was proper.

Practical Takeaways

• A denied motion to dismiss is interlocutory. Do not appeal it immediately; file an answer, preserve your defenses, and raise them on appeal after trial.
• Certiorari is a last resort. It lies only for grave abuse of discretion, not for mere errors of judgment. Courts will not issue the writ to delay litigation.
• Timing is critical. A petition for certiorari must be filed within a reasonable period—generally three months. Delays can be fatal.
• Venue depends on the nature of the action. Actions for specific performance with damages involving real property are personal actions, not real actions, if no title or ownership is in dispute.
• Questions of fact belong at trial. A court may defer ruling on a motion to dismiss when the ground is not indubitable, and that deferment is a provisional denial within judicial discretion.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.