G.R. No. 139337 , August 15, 2001
MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Carminia C. Roxas filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against private respondent Jose Antonio F. Roxas, with an application for support pendente lite for their four minor children. The case was initially docketed as Civil Case No. 97-0523 and raffled to Branch 257 of the RTC of Parañaque City. Petitioner filed a Notice of Dismissal without prejudice before summons was served or any responsive pleading was filed. She then re-filed the same complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 97-0608, which was raffled to Branch 260. The trial court (Branch 260) received evidence on the application for support pendente lite, with private respondent participating through cross-examination. The court granted the application and ordered private respondent to pay a monthly amount. Private respondent failed to comply, leading the trial court to issue orders finding him in contempt and ordering his arrest. Private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court nullified the trial court’s orders and proceedings, ruling that the petitioner’s certificate of non-forum shopping did not mention the prior filing and dismissal of the first case, and ordered the case returned to Branch 257.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the trial court’s orders and proceedings concerning support pendente lite and contempt, and in ordering the return of the case to Branch 257, based on the petitioner’s failure to mention the prior dismissed case in her certificate of non-forum shopping.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the dismissal of the first case (Civil Case No. 97-0523) by notice of dismissal before service of summons or answer was a dismissal without prejudice under Rule 17, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The re-filing of the complaint was therefore valid. The requirement of a certificate of non-forum shopping applies only to initiatory pleadings, and the re-filed complaint was a new initiatory pleading. The omission in the certificate was not a willful and deliberate attempt to mislead the court, as the prior case had been dismissed and was no longer pending. The defect, if any, was not jurisdictional and did not warrant the nullification of all subsequent proceedings, especially on a matter as urgent as support pendente lite. The trial court (Branch 260) had properly acquired jurisdiction over the re-filed case and its orders were valid. The Supreme Court reinstated the Orders dated May 13, 1998, May 19, 1998, and September 23, 1998 of the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 260.