G.R. No. 135803 - O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corp. vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corp.

On 3 February 1997, a complaint was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (Civil Case No. 97-256) by private respondents, Macamir Realty and Development Corporation and spouses Rosauro and Gloria Miranda.
The complaint sought the annulment of certain agreements and damages, arising from allegations that Jovenir Construction misrepresented itself as a legitimate contractor for the condominium project.

Macamir Realty and Development Corporation, represented by spouses Rosauro and Gloria Miranda.
Allegations included assertions regarding the unauthorized initiation of suit due to lack of proper Board Resolution authorizing spouses Miranda to act on behalf of Macamir Realty.

O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corporation, Oscar B. Jovenir, and Gregorio Liongson, among others, listed as defendants in the initial complaint.

Implemented through motions to dismiss by individuals such as Salud Madeja, Cesar Mangrobang, Sr., and Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.

It was alleged that Jovenir Construction had engaged in misrepresentation by falsely presenting its credentials, which induced private respondents to terminate the agreement for a condominium project.
The complaint further encompassed a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
A material contention arose regarding the authority of spouses Miranda to initiate suit on behalf of Macamir Realty due to the non-attachment of a mandatory Board Resolution in the first complaint.

A motion to dismiss was filed by two of the impleaded defendants (Salud Madeja on 6 February 1997 and Cesar Mangrobang, Sr. and Jr. on 13 February 1997), arguing lack of authority of the spouses Miranda based on the absence of a Board Resolution.
On 13 February 1997, private respondents filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint alleging discovery of a technical defect in the original complaint. They sought dismissal without prejudice, despite the complaint not being dismissed by mere notice.
Petitioners opposed the motion on 18 February 1997, relying on the same arguments about the lack of proper authority.
On 17 February 1997, while the first complaint was still pending, private respondents filed a second complaint (Civil Case No. 97-379) against the same defendants (except Madeja), this time supported by a Board Resolution dated 10 February 1997.
The second complaint was accompanied by a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, which erroneously stated that the first complaint had been withdrawn on 13 February 1997.

A preliminary injunction hearing was conducted on 6 February 1997.
The RTC, Branch 149, granted the Motion to Withdraw Complaint on 24 February 1997, noting that a complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiffs without a court order under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
The second complaint, filed with Branch 136 of the Makati RTC, was later evaluated in a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of forum-shopping.
The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss on 23 May 1997, clarifying that dismissal rights under the then-rules were triggered by the plaintiff’s unilateral act when no answer had been served.

Petitioners challenged the lower courts’ rulings through a special civil action for certiorari, which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals Special Sixth Division on 23 June 1998.
The petitioners argued that under Section 1, Rule 17 (as then in effect), a plaintiff may dismiss his own complaint by filing a notice of dismissal before service of the answer.
Respondents contended, however, that they had filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint instead of a notice and that this invoked additional procedural requirements.

Whether the plaintiff’s right to dismiss his own complaint by mere notice (as provided under Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure) applied in this case, particularly prior to the service of the answer.

Did the action taken by the respondents constitute a valid dismissal by notice or merely a motion that required court affirmation?

The accuracy and implications of the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping in the second complaint.

Was it appropriate to certify that the first complaint had been withdrawn on 13 February 1997 when the court order confirming the withdrawal was issued only on 24 February 1997?

The proper application of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure versus the 1997 Rules.

How does the retroactive application (or lack thereof) of the 1997 Rules affect the dismissal process in this case?

Whether the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss the second complaint on the grounds of forum-shopping was in error.

Did the procedural posture at the time of filing support the RTC’s conclusion that the old complaint had been properly dismissed?