Case Summary (G.R. No. 175507)
First Case and Dismissal
Oct. 1998: Chengs and Igne sued Ramon and others for annulment of estate‐related titles (Case No. 98-91046). Mar. 1999: Amended complaint added Po Wing and extra-judicial settlement claims, triggering a Rule 16 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Nov. 2001: Branch 6 RTC granted dismissal, citing special-proceeding subject matter, and allowed 15 days to file appropriate pleading. Plaintiffs did not amend.
Second Case and Dismissal
Apr. 2002: Respondents refiled the same causes in Civil Case No. 02-103319 before Branch 20, later transferred to Branch 6. Nov. 11, 2002: They moved to dismiss their own complaint before any answer was served. Nov. 22, 2002: Branch 6 granted dismissal under Rule 17, Section 1, without prejudice, as a matter of right.
Third Case and Omnibus Order
Dec. 2002: While petitioners’ reconsideration motion was pending, respondents filed Civil Case No. 02-105251 asserting similar estate claims. Petitioners moved to dismiss on grounds of res judicata, lis pendens, forum shopping. July 30, 2004: Branch 6 denied both the motion for reconsideration (second case) and the motion to dismiss (third case).
Appellate Proceedings
Oct. 2004: Petitioners filed CA-G.R. SP No. 86818 to annul the second‐case dismissal. Mar. 23, 2006: CA dismissed the petition, holding the “two-dismissal rule” under Rule 17, Section 1 applies only to dismissals at the plaintiff’s instance, not to a prior dismissal on a defendant’s motion. Petitioners then filed this Rule 45 petition.
Issues on Two-Dismissal Rule
- Did the second dismissal bar filing the third case under the “two-dismissal rule”?
- Did respondents commit forum shopping by filing the third case while the second case remained subject to reconsideration?
Analysis of Rule 17 Dismissals
Rule 17 governs dismissals at the plaintiff’s instance. Section 1 allows a plaintiff to dismiss before any responsive pleading; a second such dismissal bars re-filing only if both dismissals are plaintiff-initiated. Section 3 allows dismissal for plaintiff’s default, deemed an adjudication on the merits if so declared. Motions by defendants rest under Rule 16.
Application to the First and Second Dismissals
• First dismissal (Nov. 2001) was under Rule 16 at defendants’ instance for lack of jurisdiction; not counted under Rule 17’s two-dismissal rule.
• Second dismissal (Nov. 2002) was under Rule 17, Section 1 at plaintiffs’ instance, without prejudice. The trial court expressly ordered “without prejudice,” thus permitting re-filing.
Forum Shopping Considerations
Forum shopping arises when substantially similar actions are filed concurrently in separate fora. Litis pendens requires identity of parties, rights, and reliefs and bars the second action if the first remains pending. Here, respondents filed the third case while their motion for reconsideration of the second case was pending, creating parallel suits on the same cause of action.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175507)
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging CA decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 86818) and omnibus order denying their motions.
- Civil Case No. 98-91046 (“first case”) was filed October 7, 1998; amended March 22, 1999 to implead Po Wing Properties; dismissed November 13, 2001 by RTC Manila Branch 6 for lack of jurisdiction.
- Civil Case No. 02-103319 (“second case”) was filed April 19, 2002 and raffled to Branch 20, then transferred to Branch 6; plaintiffs moved to dismiss November 11, 2002; RTC granted dismissal without prejudice November 22, 2002.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration December 9, 2002, arguing “two-dismissal rule” should bar re-filing.
- Civil Case No. 02-105251 (“third case”) was filed while the motion for reconsideration in the second case was pending; respondents sought TRO and other reliefs.
- July 30, 2004 omnibus order denied both petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the second case and their motion to dismiss the third case.
- CA dismissed petitioners’ first certiorari petition March 23, 2006, holding two-dismissal rule inapplicable where first dismissal was defendant-initiated.
- Present petition for review argues second dismissal was with prejudice and bars the third case; respondents contend petitioners engaged in forum shopping and litis pendentia.
Factual Antecedents
- Antonio Ching owned Po Wing Properties and other assets allegedly worth over ₱380 million.
- He had children with two women: Ramon (with Lucina Santos) and Joseph and Jaime Cheng (with Mercedes Igne).
- Lucina Santos claims Ramon was adopted; Mercedes Igne and Chengs claim illegitimacy not contested by Lucina.
- Antonio fell ill in 1996, entrusted estate documents to Lucina, who gave them to Ramon; later recovered and demanded return.
- Antonio was murdered July 18, 1996. Ramon allegedly induced