University of the Philippines College of Law | Remedial Law Review

Topic Dismissal by Plaintiff

Case Name EDGARDO PINGA v. HEIRS OF GERMAN SANTIAGO represented by Fernando Santiago
Case No. & Date GR No. 170354 | June 30, 2006
Ponente Tinga

RELEVANT FACTS:
 On May 1998, respondent heirs of German Santiago filed a Complaint for Injunction before the RTC of Zamboanga del Sur
against petitioner Eduardo Pinga and Vicente Saavedra.
o It is alleged that the two co-defendants had been unlawfully entering the coco lands of the respondent, cutting
wood and harvesting the fruits therein.
o In their Amended Answer with Counterclaim, petitioner and his co-defendant assert that petitioner’s father,
Edmundo Pinga, from whom defendants derived their interest in the properties, had been in possession thereof
since the 1930s. In 1968, respondents had already been ordered ejected from the properties after the heirs of
Edmundo Pinga filed a Complaint for forcible entry. In 1971, the Office of the President rejected respondents’
application for free patent over the properties.
 On July 2005, for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute for an unreasonable period of time, the RTC dismissed the case but
allowed the defendants to present their evidence ex parte.
 Plaintiff filed an MR praying that the entire action be dismissed and petitioner be disallowed from presenting evidence ex
parte.
 RTC granted the MR. Defendants filed an MR, but was denied.
 PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT(S):
o A counterclaim may proceed independently even though the main action had been dismissed.
 RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT(S):
o A counterclaim could not remain pending for independent adjudication after the dismissal of the main action.
Compulsory counterclaims cannot be adjudicated independently of plaintiff’s cause of action and a conversu, the
dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of compulsory counterclaims.

ISSUES AND RATIO:

1. W/N the dismissal of the complaint necessarily carries the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaim - NO, under Rule 17
Sec. 3.
 Under Rule 17 Sec. 3, the dismissal of the complaint due to the fault of the 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 in the same or separate action. This stands in
marked contrast to the provisions under Rule 17 of the 1964 ROC which were superseded by the 1997
amendments.
 NEW RULES: Rule 17 Sec. 2-3 
o Sec. 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint
shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and
conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the
service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The
dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a
separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to
have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal
under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised
without the approval of the court.
o 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 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. The dismissal shall have
the effect of an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
 OLD RULE: Rule 17 Sec. 3
 University of the Philippines College of Law | Remedial Law Review
o Sec. 3. Failure to prosecute. – If plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute his action
for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, the action
may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion. This dismissal shall
have the effect of an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court.
 The old rule was silent on the effect of the dismissal due to failure to prosecute on the pending counterclaims.
 There is a distinction on which rule to apply when the dismissal is due to the fault of the plaintiff or upon the
instance of the defendant.
o Rule 17 Sec. 3 governs dismissals due to the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute, as in this case.
o Otherwise, it is Rule 17 Sec. 2 which covers dismissals ordered by the RTC upon the instance of the
plaintiff.
 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.
o It would then seemingly follow that if the dismissal of the complaint somehow eliminates the cause(s) of
the counterclaim, then the counterclaim cannot survive.
 Yet that is hardly the case, more often than not, the allegations that form the counterclaim are rooted in an act
or omission of the plaintiff other than the plaintiff’s very act of filing the complaint. Moreover, such acts or
omissions imputed to the plaintiff are often claimed to have occurred prior to the filing of the complaint itself.
o The only apparent exception to this circumstance is if it is alleged in the counterclaim that the very act of
the plaintiff in filing the complaint precisely causes the violation of the defendant’s rights.
o Yet even in such an instance, it remains debatable whether the dismissal or withdrawal of the complaint is
sufficient to obviate the pending cause of action maintained by the defendant against the plaintiff.
o The terms “ancillary” or “auxiliary” may mislead in signifying that a complaint innately possesses more
credence than a counterclaim, yet there are many instances wherein the complaint is trivial but the
counterclaim is meritorious.
 Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17 ordains an equitable disposition of counterclaims by ensuring that any judgment
thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself and not because of 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 TC is not precluded from dismissing it. At the same time, if the counterclaim is justified, the
amended rules unequivocally protect such counterclaim from peremptory dismissal by reason of the dismissal of
the complaint.

Ruling / Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Orders dated 9 August 2005 and 10 October 2005 of Branch 29, Regional Trial Court of
San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur in Civil Case No. 98-012 are SET ASIDE. Petitioner’s counterclaim as defendant in Civil Case. No. 98-
012 is REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to hear and decide the counterclaim with deliberate dispatch.