Go v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: California Manufacturing Co., Inc. (California) filed an action for unfair competition against Dante Y. Go (Go) in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that Go's products were sold in packaging that colorably and deceitfully imitated California's brand. California sought a preliminary injunction. Procedural History: Approximately two weeks after filing the complaint, California filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. Four days after California received Go's answer with counterclaim by registered mail, which was filed with the court on November 9, 1981, California filed its notice of dismissal. Subsequently, a fire destroyed the records of the Manila court. California then filed a second complaint with the same cause of action against Go in the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City. Judge Fernando A. Cruz of the Caloocan court issued an ex parte restraining order against Go. The Petition: Go filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the restraining order and prohibit further proceedings in the Caloocan case. Go argued that the dismissal of the first action was not effective because his answer had already been filed, thus requiring a court order for dismissal. He also accused California of forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the first action by California through a notice of dismissal was valid despite the prior filing of the defendant's answer. Whether the second action filed in the Caloocan Court of First Instance was validly commenced.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order of December 11, 1981, and the amendatory Resolution of April 14, 1982, are SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the dismissal of the first action: The Court clarified that the right of a plaintiff to dismiss an action by mere notice, as provided in Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, is contingent upon the service of the defendant's answer or a motion for summary judgment upon the plaintiff, not merely the filing of such pleading with the court. In this case, California filed its notice of dismissal before the service of Go's answer, even though the answer had already been filed with the court. Therefore, California acted within the contemplation of Section 1, Rule 17, and its notice of dismissal ipso facto terminated the action pending in the Manila Court without the need for a court order. The dismissal was effective and without prejudice as it was the first time the action was dismissed and the notice did not state otherwise. The Court emphasized the distinction between 'filing' (delivery to the clerk of court) and 'service' (delivery to the opposing party or counsel). On the validity of the second action: Since the first action was validly dismissed by California's notice of dismissal prior to the service of the answer, there was no legal impediment to the institution of the second action in the Caloocan Court of First Instance based on the same cause of action. The filing of the second complaint vested the Caloocan court with jurisdiction. The Court further noted that even if the first action were still pending, it would not affect the jurisdiction of the Caloocan court; rather, it would only give Go the right to move for the dismissal of the second action on the ground of lis pendens (another action pending between the same parties for the same cause). The petitioner's accusation of forum shopping was therefore unfounded.
Main Doctrine
A plaintiff's right to dismiss an action by mere notice under Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court is lost only upon the service of the defendant's answer or a motion for summary judgment, not merely upon the filing thereof with the court.