GR 232189; (March, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232189 , March 7, 2018
Alex Raul B. Blay, Petitioner, vs. Cynthia B. Baña, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Alex Raul B. Blay filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against respondent Cynthia B. Baña before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City. Respondent filed an Answer with a Compulsory Counterclaim. Subsequently, petitioner lost interest and filed a Motion to Withdraw his petition. Respondent opposed the motion, invoking Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, and prayed that her counterclaim be declared as remaining for the court’s independent adjudication.
Petitioner argued that respondent’s counterclaims were barred from prosecution in the same action because she failed to file the required manifestation of her preference to prosecute them in the same action within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Motion to Withdraw. The RTC granted petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw but declared respondent’s counterclaim as remaining for independent adjudication, ordering petitioner to file an answer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC Orders that declared respondent’s counterclaim for independent adjudication before the same trial court.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA’s decision. The Court clarified the proper application of Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. The provision states that if a counterclaim is pleaded prior to the service of the plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The defendant is then given the option to either prosecute the counterclaim in a separate action or have it resolved in the same action.
Critically, to choose the latter option, the defendant must manifest this preference within fifteen (15) days from notice of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Failure to timely manifest this preference means the counterclaim cannot proceed in the same action and must be prosecuted separately. In this case, respondent failed to file the required manifestation within the 15-day period. Therefore, the RTC and CA erred in allowing the counterclaim to remain in the same action.
The Court emphasized that the CA incorrectly focused only on the portion of the rule stating dismissal is “limited to the complaint,” while ignoring the subsequent requirement for a timely manifestation to prosecute the counterclaim in the same action. Consequently, the RTC should have merely granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the petition, without prejudice to respondent prosecuting her counterclaim in a separate action. The dismissal of the complaint does not automatically preserve the counterclaim in the same proceeding absent a timely manifestation.