Case Summary (G.R. No. 232189)
Key Dates
Petition for declaration of nullity filed September 17, 2014.
Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw dated March 11, 2015.
Respondent’s comment/opposition (manifestation) dated March 26, 2015; respondent’s counsel received the Motion to Withdraw on March 11, 2015.
RTC Order granting Motion to Withdraw and declaring counterclaim “as remaining for independent adjudication” dated May 29, 2015; RTC denied reconsideration March 3, 2016.
CA Decision dismissing petitioner’s petition dated February 23, 2017; CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration June 6, 2017.
Supreme Court Decision rendered March 7, 2018.
Applicable Law (including constitutional basis)
The decision was rendered in 2018 and thus falls under the 1987 Constitution as the governing Constitution. The controlling procedural provision is Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, which governs dismissal by the plaintiff and the effect on a defendant’s counterclaim when the counterclaim has been pleaded prior to service of the plaintiff’s motion for dismissal.
Section 2, Rule 17 (relevant text) provides that if a counterclaim has been pleaded prior to service of the plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint; the dismissal is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to prosecute the counterclaim in a separate action unless, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion, the defendant manifests preference to have the counterclaim resolved in the same action.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed the nullity petition; respondent filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim. Petitioner later filed a Motion to Withdraw his petition. Respondent opposed the Motion to Withdraw and requested that her counterclaim be declared remaining for independent adjudication. Petitioner replied that respondent failed to timely manifest her preference to prosecute the counterclaim in the same action within 15 days from notice of the Motion to Withdraw. The RTC granted the Motion to Withdraw and declared the counterclaim remaining for independent adjudication before the same court. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration at the RTC was denied; petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed the petition; the Supreme Court reviewed and granted petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari.
Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s orders that (a) granted petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw and (b) declared respondent’s counterclaim as remaining for independent adjudication before the same trial court, despite respondent’s alleged failure to manifest within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Motion to Withdraw her preference to have the counterclaim resolved in the same action as required by Section 2, Rule 17.
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Rulings
RTC: Granted petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw and declared respondent’s counterclaim “as remaining for independent adjudication,” and allowed petitioner fifteen (15) days to answer the counterclaim.
CA: Affirmed the RTC, reasoning that under Section 2, Rule 17 the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint where a counterclaim has been pleaded prior to service of the motion for dismissal; the CA focused on the second sentence of the provision and treated the counterclaim as automatically surviving the dismissal of the complaint.
Supreme Court Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and concluded that the CA erred in its interpretation of Section 2, Rule 17 by confining application to the provision’s second sentence and ignoring the third sentence that sets out the defendant’s alternatives and the 15-day manifestation requirement.
Textual interpretation: The provision must be read in full and harmoniously. The second sentence limits the dismissal to the complaint when a counterclaim has been pleaded prior to service of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss; however, the third sentence expressly provides that the dismissal is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to prosecute the counterclaim in a separate action unless the defendant manifests within fifteen (15) days from notice a preference to have the counterclaim resolved in the same action. Thus, the statute gives the defendant two alternatives: (1) prosecute the counterclaim in a separate action (automatic if no timely manifestation is filed), or (2) manifest within fifteen days to have it resolved in the same action.
Purpose and policy: The fifteen-day manifestation period aims to prevent the dismissal from acquiring finality that would bar further proceedings in the same action. If the defendant wishes to keep the counterclaim in the same action and avoid the finality attendant to dismissal, the defendant must file the required manifestation within the prescribed period. Failure to do so triggers the procedural consequence that the counterclaim may be prosecuted only in a separate action.
Statutory construction principle: The Court applied the rule that every part of a statute must be considered to produce a harmonious whole; reading the second sentence in isolation produced an absurd result and rendered the third sentence purposeless. The Court cited authorities underscoring that words in a statute are to be construed in context and that all provisions must be given effect.
Application to the facts: Respondent’s counsel received notice of petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw on March 11, 2015 and thus had
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 232189)
Case Caption and Citation
- G.R. No. 232189; Second Division; Decision promulgated March 07, 2018; reported at 827 Phil. 494.
- Decision authored by Justice Perlas-Bernabe.
- Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018 noted; concurrence by Carpio, Acting C.J. (Chairperson), Peralta, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ.
- Case assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 23, 2017 and Resolution dated June 6, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 146138, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Orders dated May 29, 2015 and March 3, 2016 in Civil Case No. R-PSY-14-17714-CV.
Parties
- Petitioner: Alex Raul B. Blay.
- Respondent: Cynthia B. BaAa.
- Caption and party designation drawn from the source title and the pleadings described in the source material.
Relevant Facts
- On September 17, 2014, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage seeking a declaration that his marriage to respondent is null and void on account of his psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
- Respondent filed her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated December 5, 2014.
- Petitioner later filed a Motion to Withdraw his petition, dated March 11, 2015.
- Respondent filed a comment/opposition to the Motion to Withdraw, dated March 26, 2015, invoking Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court and praying that her counterclaims be declared as remaining for the court's independent adjudication.
- Petitioner filed his reply dated April 29, 2015, alleging respondent’s manifestation to keep her counterclaims in the same action was filed only on March 30, 2015; petitioner’s counsel asserted respondent’s counsel received a copy of the Motion to Withdraw on March 11, 2015, thus giving respondent until March 26, 2015 to manifest her desire to prosecute her counterclaims in the same action.
Procedural History in the RTC
- RTC Order dated May 29, 2015: granted petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw and declared respondent’s counterclaim “as remaining for independent adjudication,” and gave petitioner fifteen (15) days to file his answer thereto.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 22, 2015.
- RTC denied reconsideration in an Order dated March 3, 2016.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari dated May 12, 2016, seeking to set aside the RTC Orders insofar as they allowed the counterclaim to remain for independent adjudication before the same trial court.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Court of Appeals Decision dated February 23, 2017 (CA-G.R. SP No. 146138): dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC Orders.
- The CA reasoned that under Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, if a counterclaim has been filed by the defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint, and thus the CA confined its application to that portion of the provision — treating the counterclaim as surviving the dismissal of the complaint.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated March 28, 2017; the CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 6, 2017.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC Orders that declared respondent’s counterclaim for independent adjudication before the same trial court.
Relevant Statutory Provision (Section 2, Rule 17, Rules of Court) — text as cited in the source
- The provision describes procedure when a complaint is dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance and states, in relevant part:
- A complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.
- If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.
- The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to have his cou