G.R. No. 169292, April 13, 2011
Spouses Francisco De Guzman, Jr. and Amparo O. De Guzman, Petitioners, vs. Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia A. Ochoa, represented by Araceli S. Azores, as their Attorney-in-Fact, Respondents.

FACTS

On March 25, 2002, respondents Cesar Ochoa and Sylvia Ochoa, through their attorney-in-fact Araceli S. Azores, filed a complaint for annulment of contract of mortgage, foreclosure sale, certificate of sale, and damages (Civil Case No. 68896) against petitioners Spouses De Guzman and others before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 160. On May 22, 2002, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the sole ground that it did not state a cause of action, which the RTC denied on December 16, 2002. Subsequently, on March 31, 2003, petitioners filed a second motion to dismiss, alleging that the certification against forum shopping attached to the complaint was fatally defective because it was executed by the attorney-in-fact, Araceli S. Azores, and not by the principal parties (the Ochoa spouses) themselves, in violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The RTC denied this second motion to dismiss in an Order dated February 12, 2004, and also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on December 29, 2004. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the complaint motu proprio due to the defective certification. The CA denied the petition, ruling that the defect was deemed waived under the omnibus motion rule as it was not raised in the first motion to dismiss. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of the second motion to dismiss, which was based on the alleged fatal defect in the certification against forum shopping (i.e., it was not personally executed by the plaintiff-spouses), considering that such defect is claimed to be jurisdictional and thus not waivable.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held:
1. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order, generally not reviewable by certiorari unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners failed to substantiate any arbitrariness, capriciousness, or ill motive on the part of the RTC judge amounting to such grave abuse.
2. The ground of defective verification and certification against forum shopping was deemed waived under the omnibus motion rule (Section 8, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court). Petitioners’ first motion to dismiss attacked the complaint but raised only the ground of failure to state a cause of action. The objection regarding the certification was available at that time but was not included. The omnibus motion rule requires that all available objections be raised in a single motion, and those not included are waived. The exceptions to this waiver rule (lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and prescription) do not apply here.
3. The requirements for verification and certification against forum shopping are formal, not jurisdictional. Non-compliance does not automatically render a pleading fatally defective. Verification aims to ensure allegations are true and filed in good faith, and courts may order its correction. The certification against forum shopping is intended to prevent the pursuit of simultaneous remedies in different fora, which is detrimental to orderly judicial procedure, but its absence is not jurisdictional.
4. The trial court was not required to dismiss the complaint motu proprio. Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that failure to comply with the rule against forum shopping is a cause for dismissal “upon motion and after hearing.” It is not a ground for motu proprio dismissal.
Therefore, the RTC correctly denied the second motion to dismiss, and the CA committed no error in upholding that denial.