Case Digest (G.R. No. 58986)
Facts:
The case Dante Y. Go v. Hon. Fernando Cruz, Judge, etc., City Sheriff of Caloocan City, and California Manufacturing Co., Inc., G.R. No. 58986, April 17, 1989, the Supreme Court First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.On October 26, 1981, California Manufacturing Co., Inc. filed an action for unfair competition in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila (Case No. 144362) against Dante Y. Go, who was doing business as Sugarland International Products and selling pasta under the brand "Great Italian." California's complaint sought injunctive relief to restrain Go from manufacturing and selling products in packaging allegedly colorably imitating California's "Royal" brand.
On November 12, 1981, California filed a written notice of dismissal "without prejudice" under Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court with the Manila court. Dante Go had previously prepared and filed an answer with counterclaim dated November 6, 1981, which the court received on November 9, 1981, but he did not receive service by registered mail until November 16, 1981.
On November 19, 1981, a fire at Manila City Hall destroyed Judge Tengco's sala and certain court records, including presumably the Manila case file. On December 1, 1981, California refiled essentially the same suit in the CFI of Caloocan (Civil Case No. C-9702), assigned to Judge Fernando A. Cruz. On December 3, 1981, Judge Cruz issued an ex parte restraining order enjoining Go from further manufacture, sale, distribution and from recalling existing stock of the products.
On December 4, 1981, Go filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Supreme Court challenging the Caloocan restraining order and seeking its nullification and inhibition. On December 11, 1981, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining California, Judge Cruz and the City Sheriff from enforcing the December 3 restraining order; this injunction was later enlarged by the Court’s April 14, 1982 Resolution to include the City Fiscal of Manila.
The Supreme Court (First Division) ultimately resolved the pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was California’s November 12, 1981 notice of dismissal in the CFI of Manila effective to dismiss the action where the defendant’s answer had been filed with the court but had not yet been served on the plaintiff?
- Did the filing of the second complaint in the CFI of Caloocan deprive that court of jurisdiction or constitute impermissible forum shopping, given the earlier M...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)