G.R. No. 58986 - Go vs. Cruz

On October 26, 1981, California Manufacturing Co., Inc. (California) filed a lawsuit against Dante Y. Go in the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Case No. 144362.
The complaint accused Dante Go, doing business as "Sugarland International Products," of unfair competition by selling spaghetti, macaroni, and other pasta products under the brand name "Great Italian," with packaging deceptively similar to California's "Royal" brand.
California sought a preliminary injunction to compel Dante Go to cease his manufacture, sale, distribution, and recall of said products.

On November 12, 1981, California filed a notice of dismissal of the case without prejudice pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which allows dismissal by the plaintiff without court order before service of answer or motion for summary judgment.
Notwithstanding the filing, California received Dante Go’s answer with counterclaim dated November 6, 1981, filed on November 9, 1981, by registered mail on November 16, 1981.

On November 19, 1981, a fire at Manila City Hall destroyed Judge Tengco's sala and the court records, including those related to the case between California and Dante Go.
On December 1, 1981, California filed a new complaint asserting the same cause of action against Dante Go, this time in the Court of First Instance at Caloocan City, docketed as Civil Case No. C-9702.

On December 3, 1981, Judge Fernando A. Cruz of the Caloocan Court issued an ex parte restraining order commanding Dante Go to cease the manufacture, sale, promotion, and distribution of pasta products under the "Great Italian" brand and to recall existing products.
Dante Go filed a petition for certiorari to nullify the restraining order and for the inhibition of Judge Cruz.
On December 11, 1981, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining California, Judge Cruz, and the City Sheriff from enforcing or implementing the restraining order and from proceeding with the preliminary injunction hearing in the second case.
The scope of this injunction was enlarged by resolution on April 14, 1982, to include the City Fiscal of Manila, preventing prosecution of unfair competition in his office.

Whether the dismissal of the initial action filed by California in the Manila Court was valid and effective despite the filing of Dante Go’s answer with the court but before service.
Whether the Caloocan Court had jurisdiction to hear the subsequent suit based on the same cause following the dismissal of the initial suit.
Whether the second suit filed by California in Caloocan constitutes forum shopping.
The legal effect of the notice of dismissal filed under Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court.