G.R. No. 135803 ; March 28, 2006
O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corporation, Oscar B. Jovenir and Gregorio Liongson, Petitioners, vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corporation, Spouses Rosauro and Gloria Miranda and the Honorable Court of Appeals, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents filed a complaint for annulment of agreements and damages against petitioners on February 3, 1997. Ten days later, on February 13, 1997, and before any defendant had filed an answer, private respondents filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint without prejudice, citing a discovered technical defect. Petitioners opposed the motion. On February 17, 1997, private respondents filed a second complaint against the same parties, attaching a board resolution to cure the earlier defect. In its verification, they stated the first complaint “was withdrawn on February 13, 1997.”
The trial court granted the Motion to Withdraw the first complaint only on February 24, 1997. Petitioners then moved to dismiss the second complaint for forum-shopping, arguing that the first complaint was still pending when the second was filed on February 17, as the court had not yet acted on the withdrawal motion. The trial court and the Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether private respondents committed forum-shopping by filing the second complaint while the first complaint was deemed still pending, given that the court’s order granting the withdrawal was issued only after the second filing.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that no forum-shopping occurred. The legal logic hinges on the application of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, which governed the incidents as they occurred before the effectivity of the 1997 Rules. Under the old Rule 17, Section 1, a plaintiff had an absolute right to dismiss the complaint by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer, and such dismissal was effective immediately upon filing, without requiring a court order. The Court clarified that the filing of a “Motion to Withdraw Complaint” substantially complied with this rule and was tantamount to a notice of dismissal.
Consequently, the first complaint was deemed withdrawn as of February 13, 1997, the date the motion was filed, not February 24, when the court issued its confirming order. Therefore, when the second complaint was filed on February 17, there was no pending action involving the same cause. The certification against forum-shopping in the second complaint was thus truthful. The Court emphasized that the 1997 Rules introduced a new requirement for a court order to confirm the dismissal, but this procedural change could not be applied retroactively to disturb the vested right of dismissal that respondents properly exercised under the old rules.