Case Summary (G.R. No. 160736)
Background of the Case
- The case originated from Civil Case No. 27802-2000 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, involving a claim for damages due to the death of the plaintiff's husband.
- Tagum Agricultural Development Corporation (TADECO) filed an answer with compulsory counterclaims and a motion to file a third-party complaint against Air Ads, Inc. and Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation.
- The RTC admitted TADECO's third-party complaint on April 14, 2000.
- On June 16, 2000, TADECO's counsel filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice against Pioneer Insurance, which led to subsequent motions and orders regarding the status of the third-party complaint.
Procedural Developments
- The RTC granted the notice of dismissal and later allowed TADECO to withdraw it, reinstating the third-party complaint against Pioneer.
- TADECO then filed a substitute third-party complaint, which only included allegations against Pioneer, to avoid complications with its former counsel.
- Air Ads filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that it had been dropped as a defendant due to the filing of the substitute complaint.
RTC's Rulings
- The RTC denied Air Ads' motion to dismiss, clarifying that the notice of dismissal was limited to Pioneer and did not affect Air Ads' status as a third-party defendant.
- Air Ads' subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading to its petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA).
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- The CA dismissed Air Ads' first petition for failure to attach necessary documents, which led to the filing of a second petition that included the required board resolution.
- The CA affirmed that the original third-party complaint against Air Ads was never dismissed, and thus, the motion to dismiss was correctly denied by the RTC.
Legal Issues Presented
- The primary issues were whether the refiling of the petition constituted forum shopping and whether the substitute third-party complaint superseded the original complaint.
- Air Ads contended that the substitute complaint dropped it as a defendant, while TADECO argued that the original complaint remained valid.
Ruling on Forum Shopping
- The Supreme Court ruled that the refiling of the petition did not constitute forum shopping or res judicata, as the first petition was dismissed without prejudice.
- The dismissal for defective verification allowed Air Ads to file a new petition to correct the deficiencies.
Ruling on the Substitute Third-Party Complaint
- The Court determined that the substitute third-party complaint did not supersede the original complaint against Air Ads.
- The original complaint remained valid as the substitute complaint was specifically directed at Pioneer and did not affect Ai...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 160736)
Decision Overview
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari challenging two resolutions by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 24, 2003, and November 13, 2003.
- The CA dismissed the petitioner's petition for certiorari and prohibition and later denied the motion for reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court found no reversible error with the CA's decisions and affirmed the dismissal.
Antecedents of the Case
- The case originated from Civil Case No. 27802-2000 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, titled Elva O. Pormento v. Tagum Agricultural Development Corporation and Edwin Yap.
- The plaintiff sought damages for her husband's death and attorney's fees.
- TADECO, as the defendant, filed an answer with compulsory counterclaims and moved to file a third-party complaint against Air Ads, Inc. and Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (Pioneer), which the RTC admitted on April 14, 2000.
Third-Party Complaint and Dismissal
- On June 16, 2000, ACCRA Law Office filed a notice of dismissal of the third-party complaint against Pioneer without prejudice.
- TADECO, through a new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw the notice of dismissal, asserting it was made without consent.
- The RTC granted the motion to withdraw the notice and also allowed a substitute third-party complaint against Pioneer, which contained only allegations against Pioneer.