GR 135803; (March, 2006) (Digest)
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 (Macamir Realty and the Miranda spouses) filed a complaint for annulment of contracts and damages against petitioners on February 3, 1997. On February 13, 1997, 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. However, on February 17, 1997, private respondents filed a second complaint with the same court, raising identical causes of action but including a board resolution to cure the earlier defect. The certification of non-forum shopping in this second complaint stated the first case “was withdrawn on February 13, 1997.” The trial court granted the motion to withdraw the first complaint only on February 24, 1997.
ISSUE
Whether private respondents committed forum-shopping by filing the second complaint on February 17, 1997, while the first complaint was still pending, given that the motion to withdraw the first complaint had not yet been granted by the court at that time.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that private respondents did not commit forum-shopping. The legal logic hinges on the application of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, which governed the incident. 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 without requiring a court order. The Court, citing Aguilar v. Nieva Jr., held that the filing of a motion to withdraw the complaint, under the old rules, was tantamount to the filing of such a notice of dismissal. Consequently, the first complaint was deemed withdrawn as of February 13, 1997, the date the motion was filed, not on February 24 when the court issued its confirming order. Since the first action was already withdrawn before the second was filed, there was no pending case, and thus no forum-shopping. The Court emphasized that the 1997 Rules, which require a court order to confirm the dismissal, could not be applied retroactively to disturb this vested right under the former procedure.