Motion To Dismiss - Injunction-Rev

Republic of the Philippines
Fourth Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch
City of Bacoor
,
Plaintiffs,
-versus- BCV Case No.

For: Injunction and
Damages
,
Defendants.
X--------------------------X
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants through the undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully move for the dismissal of the
above-captioned case upon the following arguments:
I.
GROUNDS
A. LACK OF JURISDICTION
B. PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

INJUNCTION
II.
DISCUSSION
Lack of Jurisdiction
1
1. This Complaint is one for Injunction and Damages. The act or
acts complained was or were located in Plaridel, Bulacan. The
Defendants who were supposed to be restrained are also
located in Plaridel, Bulacan. This Honorable Court is located in
the Fourth Judicial Region.
2. Section 21 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or “The Judiciary

Reorganization Act of 1980” provides:
Section 21. Original jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
original jurisdiction:
(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,

habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective
regions; and
(2) In actions affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls.
3. Jurisprudence is rich relative to the enforcement of injunction:
“Thus, consistent with the aforesaid rulings of the court, it follows then that
respondent judge, being a presiding judge of RTC, Marawi City, has no authority to
enforce the subject preliminary mandatory injunction in Makati City. The subject writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction just like the subject writ of habeas corpus in the
aforesaid case of Judge Guerrero cannot be enforced by respondent judge against a
party who is in Makati City, an area outside of his judicial jurisdiction. Clearly,
respondent judge had grossly violated the provisions of Section 21 of B.P. Blg. 129.1
Furthermore, we find the issuance of the preliminary injunction directed against the
Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental and ex-officio Sheriff of Bacolod City a
jurisdictional faux pas as the Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial Courts, can
only enforce their writs of injunction within their respective designated territories.2
4. Clearly, the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the

subject matter and even over the person of the Defendants
considering that it cannot enforce nor enjoin the acts being
performed or about to be performed outside its territorial
boundaries.
Plaintiffs did not have a cause of action for injunction
1
GABRIEL DELA PAZ, v. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, A.M. NO. RTJ-
04-1857, November 23, 2004
2
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HON. GREGORIO G. PINEDA et.al., G.R. No. L-46658, May 13,
1991
2
5. Every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action 3.
As defined by the rules, a cause of action is the act or omission
by which a party violates a right of another 4. It is the delict or
wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in
violation of the primary right of the plaintiff.5
6. To be sufficient, a cause of action must appear from the face of

the complaint6. In the case at bar, Defendants respectfully
submit that the Complaint is wanting on this particular matter.
7. A careful perusal of the ultimate facts alleged by the plaintiffs,

even assuming them to be true for the sake of argument, cannot
make out such a case.
8. Complainants alleged and made it appear that the property

they bought has an access to a public road. However, they
failed to provide proof nor any scintilla of evidence that the
road they are using is indeed a public road.
9. Perusal of the boundaries stated in the technical description of

their Transfer Certificate of Title No. _________________ of the
Registry of Deeds for the Province of Bulacan provides:
10. The lot of the Plaintiffs are bounded by private lots on all
sides. There is no mention of any road lots at all. In other
words, the lot of the Plaintiffs is not adjacent to any public road
as per the technical description of their Transfer Certificate of
Title No. __________________.
11. There are two requisites that must concur for injunction to
issue: (1) there must be a right to be protected and (2) the acts
against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of
said right. Particularly, in actions involving realty, preliminary
injunction will lie only after the plaintiff has fully established
his title or right thereto by a proper action for the purpose.7
12. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged and made it appear that
their cars and trucks which they use in their business have no
free and peaceful ingress and egress on their property and that
the Defendants were putting obstacles on the public road. But
3
Section 1, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
4
Section 2, ibid.
5
Joseph vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L-41423, 23 February 1989.
6
Mindanao Realty Corporation vs. Kintanar, L-17512, November 30, 1962; Marabiles vs. Quinto, 100
Philippines 64; Salvador vs. Frio, L-26352, May 29, 1970; Peltan Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
270 SCRA 80
7
Guillermo Salvador et.al. v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016
3
nowhere in the Complaint will show that they have a road right
of way in the first place. The alleged public road in the
Complaint is not even properly identified. In other words, the
Plaintiffs failed to even substantiate that they have rightful
access over the alleged “public road”. The Complainants have
the burden to prove that the alleged public road is indeed a
public one, in which, everyone can pass for free. Unfortunately,
they failed to do so.
Conclusion
13. This case should be dismissed outright given the grounds

above. The Complainants are the ones who should pay
damages in favor of the Defendants for filing a baseless
complaint and for troubling them to hire a counsel.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing circumstances,

Defendants, ___________________________, by counsel, most
respectfully prays, that after trial on the merits, the Honorable Court
render a Decision:
1. Dismissing the instant Complaint for utter lack of merit;
2. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendants the following:
a) The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUAND PESOS

(P100,000.00) by way of moral damages;
b) The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUAND PESOS
(P100,000.00) by way of exemplary damages;
c) The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUAND PESOS
(P100,000.00) and TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P20,000.00) per court appearance, by way of
attorney’s fees.
All other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Bacoor City, ________________.
4
THE CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Branch
City of Bacoor
G R E E T I N G S:
In accordance with the present rules, the undersigned counsel

will move the Honorable Court to grant the foregoing motion
without further argument and appearance.
Copy Furnished:

Motion To Dismiss - Injunction-Rev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Dismiss - Injunction-Rev

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Dismiss - Injunction-Rev

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

-versus- BCV Case No.

Defendants through the undersigned counsel, and unto this

B. PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

2. Section 21 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or “The Judiciary

(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,

3. Jurisprudence is rich relative to the enforcement of injunction:

4. Clearly, the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the

Plaintiffs did not have a cause of action for injunction

6. To be sufficient, a cause of action must appear from the face of

7. A careful perusal of the ultimate facts alleged by the plaintiffs,

8. Complainants alleged and made it appear that the property

9. Perusal of the boundaries stated in the technical description of

13. This case should be dismissed outright given the grounds

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing circumstances,

1. Dismissing the instant Complaint for utter lack of merit;

2. Ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendants the following:

a) The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUAND PESOS

Bacoor City, ________________.

In accordance with the present rules, the undersigned counsel

You might also like