Jovenir Construction v. Macamir Realty
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents Macamir Realty and Development Corp. (Macamir Realty) and spouses Rosauro and Gloria Miranda filed a complaint against petitioners O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corp. (Jovenir Construction), Oscar B. Jovenir, and Gregorio Liongson, seeking annulment of agreements and damages related to a condominium construction project. It was alleged that Jovenir Construction misrepresented itself as a legitimate contractor. Procedural History: Two defendants filed motions to dismiss, alleging that the spouses Miranda lacked authority to file suit on behalf of Macamir Realty due to the absence of a Board Resolution. Ten days after filing the complaint, on February 13, 1997, private respondents filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint, citing a discovered technical defect. On February 17, 1997, private respondents filed a second complaint against the same defendants (except one), attaching a Board Resolution dated February 10, 1997, authorizing the spouses Miranda to file suit. The Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in the second complaint stated the first complaint was withdrawn on February 13, 1997. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the Motion to Withdraw Complaint on February 24, 1997, noting that an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without court order before service of an answer. Petitioners moved to dismiss the second complaint for forum-shopping, arguing the first complaint was still pending when the second was filed. The RTC denied this motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that respondents had the right to dismiss the complaint without awaiting court action. The Petition: Petitioners argued that respondents did not file a notice of dismissal but a motion, which requires court action. They contended that the first complaint was not yet withdrawn when the second was filed, making the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping false and constituting forum-shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a Motion to Withdraw Complaint, before the service of an answer, constitutes an effective dismissal of the action under the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether the private respondents committed forum-shopping by filing a second complaint while the first complaint's withdrawal was still pending court approval.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that the private respondents did not commit forum-shopping and that their first complaint was effectively dismissed on February 13, 1997.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal of the complaint: Under Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff had the right to dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the service of the answer or a motion for summary judgment. This dismissal was effective ipso facto without the need for an order from the court. The Court clarified that even if the plaintiff files a "Motion to Withdraw Complaint" instead of a "Notice of Dismissal," if it clearly expresses the intent to withdraw without prejudice and is filed before the service of an answer, it should be treated as a valid dismissal. The trial court has no discretion to deny such a motion, as the plaintiff's right to dismiss is guaranteed. The Court cited Go v. Cruz to emphasize that the dismissal is effective upon filing the notice, not upon the court's action, and the right is lost only upon actual service of the answer to the plaintiff. On the issue of forum-shopping: Since the first complaint was considered effectively dismissed on February 13, 1997, by the filing of the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, it was no longer pending when the second complaint was filed on February 17, 1997. Therefore, the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, which stated that the first complaint was withdrawn on February 13, 1997, was accurate. The respondents did not violate the rules against forum-shopping because the prior action was already dismissed at the time the new action was commenced. The Court distinguished this case from Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco by reiterating that under the old rules, dismissal by notice was ipso facto and effective without court action, unlike situations where a plaintiff might seek to revive a dismissed action within a specific period.
Main Doctrine
Under the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff has an unqualified right to cause the dismissal of his complaint by mere notice at any time before the service of the answer, and such dismissal is effective ipso facto without need of court order. A motion to withdraw, even if styled as such, can be considered a notice of dismissal if it expresses the plaintiff's clear intent to withdraw without prejudice and is filed before the service of an answer.