GR 170354; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170354 , June 30, 2006
EDGARDO PINGA, Petitioner, vs. THE HEIRS OF GERMAN SANTIAGO represented by FERNANDO SANTIAGO, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, the Heirs of German Santiago, filed a complaint for injunction and damages against petitioner Edgardo Pinga and another, alleging unlawful entry and depredation on their coconut lands. In their Amended Answer, the defendants, including Pinga, denied the allegations, asserted ownership derived from petitioner’s father, and interposed a compulsory counterclaim for damages totaling P2.1 million, citing respondents’ forcible re-entry and the reckless filing of the case. After years of delay where respondents failed to present their evidence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute. The RTC, however, allowed the defendants to present evidence ex-parte on their counterclaim.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, not seeking to reinstate their complaint but praying for the dismissal of the entire action, including the counterclaim. They argued that under prevailing jurisprudence, the dismissal of the complaint carried with it the dismissal of a compulsory counterclaim. The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim, citing the sole ground that there was “no opposition” to respondents’ motion. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiff’s fault necessarily carries with it the dismissal of the defendant’s compulsory counterclaim.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the RTC’s orders. The Court held that Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly governs the situation. The rule states that if a complaint is dismissed due to the fault of the plaintiff, the dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or a separate action. This provision constitutes a clear procedural amendment that overturns the previous jurisprudential rule cited by respondents, which mandated the dismissal of a compulsory counterclaim upon the dismissal of the main complaint. The legal logic is that the Rules of Court, as promulgated by the Supreme Court, control procedural matters. The 1997 amendment deliberately severed the fate of the counterclaim from the dismissed complaint when the dismissal is attributable to the plaintiff’s fault, recognizing the defendant’s independent right to seek affirmative relief. The RTC’s dismissal of the counterclaim based merely on the absence of an opposition was erroneous, as no rule requires an opposition to a motion for reconsideration, and such absence is not a valid ground for dismissal. The counterclaim, being compulsory, should proceed for independent adjudication.