Case Summary (G.R. No. 232189)
Key Dates
- September 17, 2014: Petition for nullity filed.
- December 5, 2014: Answer with compulsory counterclaim filed.
- March 11, 2015: Respondent’s counsel received copy of petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw.
- March 26, 2015: Fifteen‐day period to manifest preference to keep counterclaim in the same action expired.
- March 30, 2015: Respondent filed her manifestation.
- May 29, 2015: RTC granted Motion to Withdraw and declared counterclaim for independent adjudication.
- June 22, 2015: Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before RTC.
- March 3, 2016: RTC denied reconsideration.
- May 12, 2016: Petition for certiorari filed with the CA.
- February 23, 2017: CA Decision dismissing petition.
- March 28, 2017: Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration with the CA.
- June 6, 2017: CA Resolution denying reconsideration.
- March 7, 2018: Supreme Court Decision.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (judicial power and rule-making authority).
- Rules of Court, Rule 17, Section 2 (dismissal upon motion of plaintiff and effect on counterclaims).
- Family Code, Article 36 (psychological incapacity).
The Facts
Petitioner sought nullification of his marriage to respondent on psychological incapacity grounds. Respondent answered and asserted a compulsory counterclaim. Petitioner subsequently lost interest and moved to withdraw his petition. Respondent, invoking Rule 17, Section 2, opposed the motion to withdraw and asked that her counterclaim remain for adjudication in the same action.
Procedural History
- RTC granted petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw on May 29, 2015, and ordered respondent’s counterclaim to proceed independently before the same court.
- RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2016.
- Petitioner filed for certiorari relief with the CA, which on February 23, 2017 affirmed the RTC Orders, holding that dismissal under Rule 17, Section 2 is limited to the complaint and that counterclaims automatically survive.
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on June 6, 2017.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Resolution
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC’s orders declaring respondent’s counterclaim for independent adjudication despite her failure to manifest preference within fifteen days from notice of the Motion to Withdraw.
Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that Rule 17, Section 2, comprises three operative sentences:
- A complaint may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance with court approval.
- If a counterclaim has been pleaded before service of the motion for dismissal, dismissal is limited to the complaint.
- The defendant must, within fifteen days of notice of the motion, manifest if he or she prefers to have the counterclaim resolved in the same action; otherwise, the counterclaim proceeds i
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 232189)
Facts
- On September 17, 2014, petitioner Alex Raul B. Blay filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging his psychological incapacity.
- Respondent Cynthia B. Baaa filed her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim on December 5, 2014.
- Petitioner later lost interest and, on March 11, 2015, filed a Motion to Withdraw his petition.
- In opposition, respondent invoked Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court and prayed that her counterclaim remain for independent adjudication.
- Petitioner replied, contending that respondent’s required manifestation to keep her counterclaim in the same action was due within 15 days from notice (received March 11, 2015), but was filed only on March 30, 2015.
Regional Trial Court Proceedings
- By Order dated May 29, 2015, RTC Branch 109, Pasay City, granted petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw, thus dismissing his Petition for Nullity of Marriage.
- The RTC declared respondent’s counterclaim “as remaining for independent adjudication” and allowed petitioner 15 days to file an answer thereto.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated March 3, 2016.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- In CA-G.R. SP No. 146138, Decision dated February 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
- The CA held that under Section 2, Rule 17, when a counterclaim is filed before service of the