This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for petitioner's prayer for attorney's fees in its Compulsory Counterclaim, the same is in order, the dismissal of respondent's Complaint nowithstanding.[50] Perkin Elmer Singapore v. Dakila Trading,[51] citing Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago,[52] enlightens: It bears to emphasize that petitioner's counterclaim against respondent is for damages and attorney's fees arising from the unfounded suit. While respondent's Complaint against petitioner is already dismissed, petitioner may have very well incurred damages and litigation expenses such as attorney's fees since it was forced to engage legal representation in the Philippines to protect its rights and to assert lack of jurisdiction of the courts over its person by virtue of the improper service of summons upon it. Hence, the cause of action of petitioner's counterclaim is not eliminated by the mere dismissal of respondent's complaint.[53] (Underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2009-07-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the 2006 case of Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago,[35] the Court, after noting the observations of Justice Florenz Regalado in his separate opinion in BA Finance on Section 3 of Rule 17 which section, for convenience, is again quoted,[36] viz: SEC. 3. Dismissal due to fault of plaintiff. - If, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion, without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Where the defendant has interposed a counterclaim (whether compulsory or permissive) or is seeking affirmative relief by a cross-complaint, the plaintiff cannot dismiss the action so as to affect the right of the defendant in his counterclaim or prayer for affirmative relief. The reason for that exception is clear. When the answer sets up an independent action against the plaintiff, it then becomes an action by the defendant against the plaintiff, and, of course, the plaintiff has no right to ask for a dismissal of the defendant's action. The present rule embodied in Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure ordains a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not on the survival of the main complaint. Certainly, if the counterclaim is palpably without merit or suffers jurisdictional flaws which stand independent of the complaint, the trial court is not precluded from dismissing it under the amended rules, provided that the judgment or order dismissing the counterclaim is premised on those defects. At the same time, if the counterclaim is justified, the amended rules now unequivocally protect such counterclaim from peremptory dismissal by reason of the dismissal of the complaint.[23] | |||||
|
2007-08-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the cases of Metal Engineering Resources Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[50] International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[51] and BA Finance Corporation v. Co.,[52] the Court ruled that if the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main action of the case and dismisses the same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary to the principal controversy, must likewise be dismissed since no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim.[53] If we follow the aforesaid pronouncement of the Court in the cases mentioned above, the counterclaim of the herein petitioner being compulsory in nature must also be dismissed together with the Complaint. However, in the case of Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago,[54] the Court explicitly expressed that:Similarly, Justice Feria notes that "the present rule reaffirms the right of the defendant to move for the dismissal of the complaint and to prosecute his counterclaim, as stated in the separate opinion [of Justice Regalado in BA Finance]. Retired Court of Appeals Justice Hererra pronounces that the amendment to Section 3, Rule 17 [of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure] settles that "nagging question "whether the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the counterclaim, and opines that by reason of the amendments, the rulings in Metals Engineering, International Container, and BA Finance "may be deemed abandoned." x x x. | |||||