Short answer. Only on three grounds. The Rules now list the motion to dismiss among prohibited motions except where it asserts that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that another action is pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the claim is barred by prior judgment or the statute of limitations.
What the law says
Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds: 1) That 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
Rule 15, Section 12 — Prohibited motions. Read the full provision →
The general rule flipped
The motion to dismiss was once the standard opening move of Philippine civil defense — a menu of grounds raised before answering, each capable of adding months to a case. The current Rules invert that: the motion to dismiss is now on the list of motions that shall not be allowed, and survives only through three named exceptions. What the three survivors share is that each would make a full trial pointless: a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter can decide nothing; a second case between the same parties for the same cause duplicates the first; and a claim barred by prior judgment or by the statute of limitations is dead on arrival however well it is tried.
Where the old grounds went
The familiar objections — improper venue, lack of legal capacity, failure to state a cause of action, payment, waiver, unenforceability — did not vanish; they moved. They are now raised as affirmative defenses in the answer, where the court resolves them without a separate pre-answer battle. The same provision seals off the workarounds: a motion to hear affirmative defenses is prohibited, and so is a motion for reconsideration of the court's action on the affirmative defenses. The design is blunt — defenses go in the answer, the court rules on them, and the case moves, rather than idling while a preliminary motion is briefed, heard, decided and reconsidered.
The rest of the banned list
The provision sweeps wider than the motion to dismiss. Prohibited alongside it are motions to suspend proceedings without a temporary restraining order or injunction issued by a higher court, and motions for extension of time to file pleadings or other papers — with one exception the rule itself preserves, a motion for extension to file an answer. Postponements get the strictest treatment: a motion for postponement intended for delay is banned, excused only by acts of God, force majeure or physical inability of the witness to appear and testify, and even then the movant is warned that the presentation of evidence must still finish on the dates previously agreed, and the motion must carry the official receipt for the postponement fee.
What this means for a defendant
When the complaint arrives, sort your objections immediately into the two channels. If you genuinely have one of the three surviving grounds — no subject-matter jurisdiction, a pending identical case, or a claim barred by prior judgment or limitations — a motion to dismiss remains available and can end the case early. Everything else belongs in the answer as an affirmative defense, which means the answer must be complete and filed on time; there is no longer a motion practice to buy drafting weeks. The era of dismissal motions as delay strategy is deliberately over — treat the answer, not the motion, as the main event.