Case Summary (G.R. No. 143557)
Nature of the Case and Procedural Background
California Manufacturing Co., Inc. filed an unfair competition suit against Dante Go, alleging that Go was selling pasta products under the brand "Great Italian," which imitated California’s "Royal" brand packaging. The complaint included a request for a preliminary injunction to halt Go’s activities. After filing the complaint, California filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice on November 12, 1981, before receiving service of Go’s answer.
Subsequently, a fire destroyed case records in the Manila City Hall, where the first case was pending. California then filed a second action for the same cause of action in the Court of First Instance of Caloocan City. The new court issued an ex parte restraining order against Go, prompting him to petition the Supreme Court to nullify the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court intervened with a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the Caloocan order.
Legal Issue: When Does a Plaintiff Lose the Right to Dismiss an Action by Notice?
The primary issue was whether California’s dismissal in the Manila court was valid and, if so, whether the second action filed in Caloocan City was proper. Dante Go argued that because he had already filed his answer before California filed its notice of dismissal, dismissal by mere notice was no longer a matter of right but required a court order.
Applicable Rule: Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court
Section 1, Rule 17 permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court order by filing a notice of dismissal anytime before service of the defendant’s answer or a motion for summary judgment. Importantly, “filing” refers to delivering pleadings to the court clerk, whereas “service” refers to formal delivery to parties affected, either personally or through counsel.
Analysis: Filing Versus Service of Answer
California filed the notice of dismissal after Dante Go's answer had been filed with the court clerk but before the answer was formally served on California. Under the Rules of Court, the right of a plaintiff to dismiss by notice remains as long as dismissal is sought before service of the answer or motion for summary judgment.
Hence, California acted within the letter and spirit of the law, and the dismissal was effective upon filing, without the need for a court’s order. The dismissal was without prejudice, because this was California’s first dismissal of the action.
Effect of Dismissal and Validity of Second Action
Since the first suit was legally dismissed, California was free to bring a second suit based on the same claim in a different court. The second filing vested jurisdiction in the Caloocan Court of First Instance. Even if the first suit had still been pending, the Caloocan court would have jurisdiction over the second case, though Dante Go could move for its dismissal on grounds of lis pendens (pendency of action)—a procedural remedy, not a jurisdictional defect.
Conclusion and Supreme Court Decision
Petitioner Dante Go’s contention that the first action was still pending and that the Caloocan court lacked jurisdiction was held to be erroneous. The dismissal by California was valid and effective upon filing, as service of the answer had not been made before dismissal notice was filed. Ther
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143557)
Facts and Procedural History
- California Manufacturing Co., Inc. (California) filed a case for unfair competition against Dante Y. Go in the Court of First Instance of Manila on October 26, 1981, docketed as Case No. 144362 under Branch XV.
- The complaint alleged that Dante Go, operating as "Sugarland International Products," was selling pasta products under the brand name "Great Italian" packaged in a manner that imitated California's "Royal" brand containers, which constituted unfair competition.
- California applied for a preliminary injunction to stop Dante Go from further manufacture, sale, and distribution of the allegedly infringing products.
- On November 12, 1981, California filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Section 1, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, dismissing the Manila case.
- Dante Go filed an answer with counterclaim dated November 6, 1981, which was filed with the Court on November 9, 1981, but service of the answer to California was only effected on November 16, 1981.
- On November 19, 1981, a fire destroyed Manila City Hall records, including those of the case filed by California against Dante Go.
- Subsequently, on December 1, 1981, California filed a new complaint for the same cause of action against Dante Go before the Court of First Instance, Caloocan City (Civil Case No. C-9702).
- Judge Fernando A. Cruz of Caloocan issued an ex parte restraining order on December 3, 1981, directing Dante Go to stop manufacturing, selling, promoting, and distributing pasta products under the "Great Italian" brand.
- Dante Go petitioned this Court for certiorari to nullify the restraining order and for the inhibition of Judge Cruz.
- This Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on December 11, 1981, restraining enforcement of the Caloocan restraining order and subsequently expanded it on April 14, 1982.
Issues Presented
- Whether California's notice of dismissal of the Manila court case was effective, considering that Dante Go’s answer had already been filed but not yet served.
- Whether the dismissal of a civil action under Section 1, Rule 17, rests absolutely with the will of the plaintiff or whether it requires the court’s approval after an answer is filed.
- Whether the subsequent filing of the same complaint in another court constitutes improper forum shopping or affects the jurisdiction of the latter court.
- Whether the Caloocan Court had jurisdiction over the second action based on the same cause despite the prior dismissal and pendency allegations of the Manila court case.
Legal Principles and Rules Applied
- The dismissal of civil actions is generally within the sound discretion and judgment of the court, whether after trial or otherwise, and whether sought by plaintiff or defendant.
- Howe