1) Why the issue matters

In civil actions, the time to file an Answer is a reglementary period—missing it can expose a defendant to being declared in default (where allowed) and losing the chance to contest allegations and present defenses. A common question is whether filing a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) stops (“tolls”) the running of that period.

The short doctrinal idea is simple:

A proper, allowed MTD filed on time generally interrupts the period to answer.
A prohibited or improper MTD generally does not.

The complication is that the “current” rules in ordinary civil actions significantly curtailed motions to dismiss, shifting many dismissal grounds into affirmative defenses in the Answer. So the effect on the answer period depends heavily on (a) what kind of case it is, and (b) whether the MTD is one the Rules permit.

2) The governing framework: where the “time to answer” comes from

A. The Answer period in ordinary civil actions (Regional Trial Courts / first-level courts, regular procedure)

Under the amended Rules on Civil Procedure, the basic period to file an Answer in an ordinary civil action is 30 calendar days from service of summons (subject to specific rule-based variations such as answers to amended complaints, supplemental pleadings, counterclaims, etc.).

The key point: the clock starts running upon service of summons (or, for certain pleadings, upon service of the relevant pleading/order), and it keeps running unless the Rules recognize a valid interrupting event.

B. What can interrupt that period

Historically (and still conceptually), the Rules recognize that certain preliminary attacks or requests (e.g., bill of particulars, certain motions to dismiss) can interrupt the time to file a responsive pleading—because they ask the court to resolve threshold issues before requiring an Answer.

But after the major amendments to the civil rules, most dismissal grounds must be pleaded as affirmative defenses in the Answer, and motions to dismiss are largely disallowed in ordinary civil actions—meaning fewer situations where an MTD can validly interrupt the answer period.

3) “Old” versus “current” landscape (why many practitioners talk past each other)

A. Pre-amendment approach (classic Rule 16 model)

Under the earlier structure (when Rule 16 on motions to dismiss was the main pathway), the rule was straightforward:

Defendant had a fixed period to answer (e.g., 15 days in many instances).
If defendant filed an MTD within that period, the filing interrupted the time to answer.
If the MTD was denied, the defendant filed an Answer within the remaining balance, but not less than a minimum safety period (commonly expressed as “not less than 5 days,” depending on the rule text then in force).
If the MTD was granted, no Answer was required because the complaint was dismissed (subject to appellate remedies or refiling, if allowed).

B. Current ordinary civil procedure (post-amendment model)

Under the amended Rules of Civil Procedure, the system was redesigned to:

Reduce delays from pre-answer motions, and
Require defendants to raise many dismissal grounds as affirmative defenses in the Answer, which the court may resolve early, sometimes even without trial.

As a result:

An MTD is generally a prohibited motion in ordinary civil actions, except for narrowly specified grounds (and some contexts where a threshold dismissal motion remains recognized).
If a motion is prohibited, filing it is typically treated as a procedural misstep that does not stop the answer period from running.

4) In ordinary civil actions today: when an MTD can still affect the answer period

A. The critical first question: Is the MTD allowed?

In ordinary civil actions under the amended rules, the “allowed” MTD is typically limited to select grounds that are considered fundamental threshold bars (commonly grouped as jurisdictional/ preclusive/ time-bar defenses). Many other grounds that used to be raised by MTD (e.g., failure to state a cause of action, improper venue, lack of legal capacity to sue, etc., depending on the specific ground) are now expected to be raised as affirmative defenses in the Answer.

Practical consequence: If the defendant files an MTD on a ground that the current rules require to be pleaded as an affirmative defense, the motion may be treated as a prohibited motion—and the period to answer may continue running.

B. If the MTD is allowed and timely: interruption/tolling logic

Where the rules recognize an allowed MTD filed within the answer period, the standard tolling logic applies:

Filing within the answer period interrupts the running of the time to file an Answer.
If denied, the defendant must file the Answer within:
- the remaining balance of the original period, counted from notice of denial (or from receipt of the order, depending on the rule’s phrasing and court practice), but
- subject to a minimum number of days (a “floor”) to prevent unfairness if the original period was almost consumed before the motion was filed.

C. If the MTD is granted: no Answer is due (but watch the type of dismissal)

If the complaint is dismissed, the defendant generally does not file an Answer. However, “dismissal” can take forms that matter:

Dismissal without prejudice may allow refiling; the defendant may face a new summons later.
Dismissal with prejudice bars refiling on the same cause (subject to appeals).
Some dismissals may be framed in orders that also address amendments or refiling conditions.

The answer obligation usually disappears because the case (as pleaded) is terminated—yet post-order remedies (appeal, motion for reconsideration, etc.) can still be pursued by the plaintiff.

5) The second critical question: What happens if the MTD is prohibited or improper?

A. Prohibited MTD generally does not suspend the period

When a motion is prohibited under the Rules applicable to the case, filing it typically does not:

stop the running of the answer period,
justify late filing of an Answer, or
compel the court to wait before taking action on default or proceeding.

The policy is to prevent defendants from using forbidden motions as delay tools.

B. How courts may treat a prohibited motion in practice

Depending on the rule set and the court’s approach, a prohibited MTD may be:

expunged (stricken from the record),
denied outright, and/or
treated as a mere scrap of paper with no legal effect.

In some settings (notably in certain summary-type proceedings), courts may instead treat a mislabeled motion as part of, or a substitute for, the responsive pleading only if it substantially contains defenses and is filed within the period—though this is fact-sensitive and not something to rely on casually.

C. Default risk

If a defendant files a prohibited MTD and does not file a timely Answer, the plaintiff may move to declare the defendant in default (where the rules permit default). The defendant then has to fight an uphill battle to lift default, usually by showing:

excusable negligence,
meritorious defenses, and
compliance with procedural requirements.

6) Computing time: how the “balance” concept works when interruption is recognized

When interruption is recognized (i.e., an allowed interrupting motion was filed on time), computation generally follows this structure:

Count how many days of the answer period elapsed before the motion was filed.
Subtract from the total answer period to get the remaining balance.
Upon receipt of the order denying (or resolving) the motion, the defendant has that balance to file the Answer—subject to a minimum floor (so the defendant still has a meaningful time to answer even if only 1–2 days remained when the motion was filed).

Illustrative example (conceptual)

Answer period: 30 calendar days from service of summons.
Defendant files an allowed motion on Day 20.
Ten (10) days remain.
If the motion is denied, the defendant typically has 10 days from notice/receipt of denial to file the Answer (subject to any minimum-floor rule, which matters more when the remaining balance is very short).

7) Interaction with other pre-answer filings that affect the answer period

A. Motion for Bill of Particulars (distinct from MTD)

A motion for bill of particulars is a recognized tool to require clarification of vague matters in a pleading. Properly filed, it is traditionally treated as interrupting the time to file the responsive pleading until the bill is served (and then the defendant answers within the remaining period, typically with a minimum floor).

This matters because, in the amended system where many “dismissal-type” objections must be raised in the Answer, a bill of particulars becomes a more legitimate pre-answer mechanism to address vagueness without risking a prohibited MTD.

B. Motions for extension of time to file Answer

Motions for extension exist in practice, but the amended Rules emphasize expedition and limit dilatory tactics. Whether and how extensions are granted depends on the rule text and the judge’s discretion; relying on an extension as a “right” is risky. Importantly, an extension motion is not the same as an MTD; it does not “interrupt” by operation of a dismissal-rule framework—it depends on court action.

8) Special settings where MTDs are generally disallowed—and thus do not toll time to answer

Even before the amendments to ordinary procedure, Philippine procedure has long included case types designed for speed where motions to dismiss are usually prohibited, and defenses must be raised in the Answer (or equivalent responsive pleading). In these, an MTD ordinarily does not stop the answer period.

A. Ejectment cases (forcible entry/unlawful detainer; Rule 70)

Ejectment cases are summary in nature. The rules require defendants to file an Answer within a short period, and dilatory motions are disfavored. Many motions to dismiss are not entertained; defenses are raised in the Answer.

Effect: Filing an MTD in an ejectment case is generally a poor way to “buy time,” and may not toll the answer deadline.

B. Summary Procedure cases

Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, motions to dismiss are typically among prohibited motions. Again, defenses are raised in the Answer/position paper framework.

Effect: A prohibited MTD generally does not suspend time to answer.

C. Small claims

Small claims proceedings are intentionally non-technical and fast, with strict limitations on motions and pleadings.

Effect: An MTD generally has no tolling function; the defendant must comply with the specific small claims response requirements within the prescribed period.

9) What if the defendant raises dismissal matters in the Answer instead of filing an MTD?

Because the amended rules channel many dismissal grounds into affirmative defenses, the practical sequence now is often:

Defendant files Answer on time.
Defendant pleads affirmative defenses that would traditionally support dismissal.
The court may resolve those defenses early—sometimes through a preliminary hearing or by order—without full trial.

Key point for timing: This approach does not require tolling because the Answer is filed within the original period; the “dismissal fight” happens inside the Answer framework.

10) Edge issues and nuances

A. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter

This defense is often treated as fundamental and may be raised at various stages, even late, and sometimes motu proprio by the court. But if a defendant uses an allowed pre-answer motion to raise it within the answer period, it typically follows the interruption logic described above. If raised later, it does not “undo” missed answer deadlines for other purposes.

B. Multiple defendants and different service dates

Each defendant’s period to answer generally runs from their own service of summons. If one defendant files an allowed interrupting motion, it does not automatically toll another defendant’s independent deadline unless the rules/order provide otherwise.

C. Amended complaints and responsive pleadings

If a complaint is amended, the defendant’s time to answer the amended complaint follows the rule on amended pleadings. If an allowed interrupting motion is directed at the amended complaint and filed within the responsive period for that amended complaint, the same interruption logic applies—but always anchored to the correct starting point (service of the amended pleading, not the original summons, if that is what the rule requires in context).

D. Filing methods and proof of filing

Interrupting effect (where recognized) presupposes that the motion was properly filed and served under the Rules, and within the reglementary period. Disputes sometimes arise on:

date of filing (especially with e-filing rules, courier filing, or local court protocols),
date of service on the adverse party,
completeness (e.g., missing proof of service).

A defective filing can forfeit the intended interrupting effect.

11) Practical doctrinal takeaway (Philippine context)

In ordinary civil actions under the amended Rules, do not assume an MTD is available. Many grounds are now meant to be raised as affirmative defenses in the Answer, not via motion.
Only an allowed, timely MTD (in the cases/grounds where the Rules permit it) should be treated as interrupting the time to answer.
A prohibited MTD is a trap: it can be denied/stricken and the answer period may keep running—creating default exposure.
When interruption applies, denial triggers the “balance-of-time” rule, usually with a minimum floor so the defendant has a fair window to answer.
In summary-type proceedings (ejectment, summary procedure, small claims), motions to dismiss typically do not toll time because they are generally prohibited or inconsistent with the expedited design.

12) Synthesis: “all there is to know” in one operational rule

To determine the effect of an MTD on the time to file an Answer, apply this sequence:

Identify the procedure governing the case (ordinary civil action vs. ejectment vs. summary procedure vs. small claims, etc.).
Check whether an MTD is allowed in that procedure and on that ground.
If allowed and filed on time, treat it as interrupting the answer period; if denied, answer within the remaining balance subject to the minimum floor.
If prohibited or improper, assume no interruption, and file the Answer within the original deadline (or risk default and waiver of defenses).

This captures the practical and doctrinal effect of a Motion to Dismiss on the reglementary period to file an Answer under Philippine procedural law.