[04] Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago.pdf - SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 494 12:45 AM VOL 494 393 Pinga vs Heirs of German Santiago G.R No

[04] Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago.pdf - SUPREME COURT...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 33 pages.

1/13/19, 12:45 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 494 Page 1 of 33 VOL. 494, JUNE 30, 2006 393 Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago G.R. No. 170354. June 30, 2006. * EDGARDO PINGA, petitioner, vs . THE HEIRS OF GERMAN SANTIAGO represented by FERNANDO SANTIAGO, respondents. Remedial Law; The constitutional faculty of the Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessary carries the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law. · The constitutional faculty of the Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure necessarily carries the power to overturn judicial precedents on points of remedial law through the amendment of the Rules of Court. One of the notable changes introduced in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the explicit proviso that if a complaint is dismissed due to fault of the plaintiff, such dismissal is „without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action.‰ The innovation was instituted in spite of previous jurisprudence holding that the fact of the dismissal of the complaint was sufficient to justify the dismissal as well of the compulsory counterclaim. _______________ * THIRD DIVISION. 394 394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago
Image of page 1
1/13/19, 12:45 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 494 Page 2 of 33 Same; Actions; The Dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim.· We hold that under Section 3, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of plaintiff does not necessarily carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim, compulsory or otherwise. In fact, the dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the right of defendants to prosecute the counterclaim. Same; Same; Dismissal of plaintiffÊs complaint is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action. ·The express qualification in the provision that the dismissal of the complaint due to the plaintiffÊs fault, as in the case for failure to prosecute, is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or separate action. This stands in marked contrast to the provisions under Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Court which were superseded by the 1997 amendments. In the 1964 Rules, dismissals due to failure to prosecute were governed by Section 3, Rule 17. Same; If the court dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the compulsory counterclaim must also be dismissed as it is merely ancillary to the main action and no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim. ·We should not ignore the theoretical bases of the rule distinguishing compulsory counterclaims from permissive counterclaims insofar as the dismissal of the action is concerned. There is a particular school
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture