RULE 17: DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS Dante Go vs. Hon.

Cruz, City Sheriff and California Manufacturing (1989) [Facts] - California Manufacturing filed a case against Dante Go for unfair competition alleging that the latters pasta products (Great Italian) such as spaghetti and macaroni are packed with confusing similarity and colourable imitation with the formers Royal Pasta products. - 2 weeks later, California filed a Notice of Dismissal without prejudice - 4 days after it received Gos answer with counterclaim - Fire broke out at the Manila City Hall and burned the records therein including the case filed by California - California filed another complaint based on the same cause of action against Go in the CFI Caloocan. - Caloocan judge issued a restraining order directing Go to cease and desist from manufacturing and selling his products. - Go claims that the case in Manila is still pending and that the dismissal sought by California is no longer a matter of right. He further accused California of forum shopping at Caloocan judges sala. [issue] Whether or not the dismissal of California is in accordance with the Rules of Court thus allowing it to file a subsequent case [ruling] Yes, it is in accord with RC. Section 1 Rule 17 mandates that notice of dismissal must be filed any time before service of answer. -California filed its notice of dismissal in CFI manila after Gos filing of answer but before service thereof. Thus, its notice ipso facto brought about the dismissal of the action pending in Manila court, without need of any order or action by the presiding judge therein. -No legal obstacle to the institution of the second action in the Caloocan CFI based on the same claim. Fermin Jalover vs Porferio Ytoriaga, Consolacion Lopez (1977) [facts] - This involves a land dispute filed by Ytoriaga and Lopez vs. Jalover in CFI Iloilo. - Ytoriaga and Lopez claims that a land which was once under water automatically belongs to them based on the principle of continuous possession and alluvion. They alleged that Jalover, without their consent, had that portion of land surveyed and even placed concrete monuments thereon and took possession thereof. - Jalover, in his answer, alleged that his mother and Hedriana are co-owners of said land; that he, as heir, is entitled to that portion. - Ytoriaga and Lopez offered documentary evidence and upon admission thereof, rested their case. - Continuation of trial was ordered transferred until further assignment, thus, causing the postponement of said case for a period of more than 6 years. - When the case was re-called for trial, Ytoriaga and Lopez failed to appear. Judge Blanco dismissed the case for their failure to prosecute. - 2 years after, Ytoriagas counsel filed an MR but denied. Counsel filed a petition for relief of judgement. It was given due course. [issue] Whether or not the prior case is validly dismissed for failure to prosecute. [ruling] No. Private respondents (Y and L) could not have possibly failed to prosecute as they were already past the stage of presenting their evidence. Their absence during the time the case was re-called for trial was a mere waiver of their right to cross-examine the witnesses. The dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute when in truth they have already presented their evidence and rested their case would, in effect, mean a total disregard of the court of the evidence presented by them in the regular course of trial. Further, said dismissal never attained finality as the notice thereof was not served upon their counsel of record.

Ligaya, Jaime, Silvina, Fausta, Pablo all surnamed Mina vs. Antonia Pacson, Crispino Medina and Cresencia Mina (1963) [facts] - Case 1: The Minas are claiming to be the illegitimate children of Joaquin Mina while married to Pacson. They are claiming that the DOS allegedly signed by Joaquin when he was ill was fraudulently obtained. They pray for the annulment of the DOS and their recognition as illegitimate children. - Court in Case 1 ordered that Pacson be impleaded. The Minas failed to comply with said order, thus, it was dismissed. - Case 2: The Minas filed another case, this time impleading Pacson but with the same cause of action and including Medina and Cresencia. - Defendants filed a MTD on the ground of res judicata. [issue] Whether or not CC 3015 (case 1) effectively bars the present case [ruling] Partially. Failure to comply with a court order has the effect of adjudication upon the merits (Sec 3 Rule 17). Thus, failure to comply with the court order in CC 3015 justifies the dismissal on the issue of annulment of DOS. However, present case is not deemed dismissed as to the issue of filiation and Pacson, as she is not impleaded in the prior case. Agustin Casenas vs. Concepcion Sanchez de Rosales, Romeo Rosales, et. Al. (1967) [facts] - Case 1 prays for the execution of DOS in favour of Casenas: filed by Rodolfo Aranas(assignor) and Casenas(assignee) vs. Jose Rosales and Sanchez. - Rosales and Sanchez filed an answer before trial. Counsel for Aranas and Casenas manifested the death of Jose Rosales and Aranas. The court ordered Casenas to amend the complaint. Casenas failed to comply, thus, it was dismissed. Case 2 (present case) prays for quieting and reconveyance of title in favour of Casenas. Sanchez claims res judicata.

[issue] Whether or not dismissal in the prior case effectively bars the present case [ruling] No. The order to amend the complaint is not in accordance with the procedure of the RC. The court should have ordered the counsel to make a substitution of the deceased by the legal representatives of the deceased. Casenas failure to comply with the order of the court did not validly justify the dismissal of the said case. Planters Bank vs Hon. Molina, Sarmiento Securities, et. Al. (1988) [facts] - Case 1 filed by Planters for the collection of sum of money based on a PN against Sarmiento Securities. It was dismissed for failure to prosecute. - Case 2 filed by Planters based on the same cause of action. Sarmiento claims res judicata. [issue]Whether or not the court in the prior case validly dismissed the same thus barring the present case [ruling] No. The court if the first case has no jurisdiction for failure to serve summons on defendants. Thus, the dismissal has no effect of adjudication on the merits and cannot effectively bar the present case.

In the matter of the estate of Candelaria Benguan. Susana abay de Arroyo vs. Francisco Abay, Conrado Abay, et.al. (1962) [facts] - Spec Pro1 filed by Felix Abay, brother of Susana for the probate of the will of Candelaria is dismissed for failure of Felix and his counsel to appear on the date set for hearing - Spec Pro 2 (this case) filed by Susana for the probate of the will of Candelaria - Defendants claim res judicata [issue] Whether or not Spec Pro 1 bars Spec Pro 2 [ruling] No. Fault of one in a probate of a will imputes him alone. Failure of Felix and his counsel to appear cannot prejudice the right of Susana. Moreover, the dismissal fails to state with prejudice .