Title
Supreme Court
O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corp. vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 135803
Decision Date
Mar 28, 2006
A 1997 case involving Macamir Realty and Jovenir Construction over annulment of agreements and alleged misrepresentation. The Supreme Court ruled that the first complaint was automatically dismissed upon filing a withdrawal motion, and the second complaint did not constitute forum-shopping.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135803)

Applicable Law

The decisions made are based on the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure, as the incidents occurred before the effective date of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

Filing of the Complaint

On February 3, 1997, a complaint was filed by the spouses Miranda on behalf of Macamir Realty against Jovenir Construction and its officials, alleging misrepresentation. Petitioners' alleged misrepresentation led to the termination of the agreements concerning the construction of the condo project.

Motion to Dismiss

Following the filing of the complaint, two defendants filed motions to dismiss, questioning the authority of the spouses Miranda to act on behalf of Macamir Realty due to the absence of a Board Resolution authorizing the legal action. This issue was compounded by the fact that the defendant Salud Madeja, who was part of Macamir Realty's Board, asserted that the spouses lacked this authority.

Motion to Withdraw Complaint

On February 13, 1997, the private respondents filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint, indicating a technical defect that could potentially lead to dismissal. They requested to withdraw the initial complaint without prejudice. The petitioners opposed this motion, citing the ongoing nature of the first complaint.

Subsequent Filing of Second Complaint

On February 17, 1997, the private respondents filed a second complaint, this time including a Board Resolution that authorized the spouses Miranda to file the complaint. This new complaint was against the same defendants except Madeja, and sought similar remedies as the first complaint.

Court's Granting of Motion to Withdraw

On February 24, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Makati granted the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, affirming that the plaintiffs had the right to dismiss their action without requiring court approval prior to the service of an answer by the defendants.

Forum-Shopping Allegations

After the first complaint had theoretically been dismissed, the petitioners alleged violation of procedural rules against forum-shopping, as the second complaint was filed while the first was still technically pending. The RTC dismissed the motion to dismiss on these grounds, determining that the first complaint was properly withdrawn.

Appeals and Final Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's decision. The petitioners contested the legality of the withdrawal process, arguing that the Motion to Withdraw required court approval rather than being a unilateral action by the plaintiff. However, the ruling emphasized that pursuant to the 1964 Rules of Civil

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.