GR 161309; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161309; February 23, 2005
DOUGLAS LU YM, petitioner, vs. GERTRUDES NABUA, GEORGE N. LU, ALEX N. LU, CAYETANO N. LU, JR., JULIETA N. LU AND BERNADITA N. LU, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents filed an Amended Complaint for Accounting with TRO and Injunction against petitioner Douglas Lu Ym. Petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss on grounds including res judicata, lack of legal capacity to sue, failure to state a cause of action, and non-payment of docket fees. He argued the complaint was a collateral attack on a probated will and a final project of partition from a concluded estate proceeding. The trial court denied the motion in a one-sentence order, stating there were “justiciable questions” proper for a full trial, and later denied reconsideration to avoid “prejudgment.”
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss without clearly and distinctly stating the reasons for its denial, as required by Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that while a denial of a motion to dismiss is generally an unappealable interlocutory order, certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if the denial was issued with grave abuse of discretion. The trial court’s terse, boilerplate order violated the mandatory directive of Section 3, Rule 16, which requires a resolution to “state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor.” This requirement ensures the parties are informed of the court’s legal and factual bases, enabling intelligent motions for reconsideration or petitions for certiorari. The trial court’s failure to address the specific grounds raised, particularly those potentially determinative without a full trial (like res judicata or lack of jurisdiction over unpaid fees), constituted grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court did not order the dismissal of the case. Instead, it remanded the case to the trial court to resolve the motion to dismiss anew in compliance with Rule 16, allowing the court to properly evaluate the grounds and any evidence presented under Section 2 of the same Rule. The Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court’s orders was reversed and set aside.