Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Ching v. Cheng, G.R. No.

175507, October 8, 2014

FACTS: Antonio Ching, though unmarried was alleged to have children by two
women, Lucina Santos (common law wife) and Maria Igne (housemaid). Antonio and
Lucina had a son named Ramon Ching, while Maria and Antonio had two children
named Joseph and Jaime, both surnamed "Cheng". After Antonio died, Ramon
Ching convinced Maria Igne, together with her children, to sign an agreement
wherein they will no longer pursue their claim in the estate of Antonio in exchange of a
considerable sum of money. However, after investigation, it was found that Ramon
was the primary suspect for Antonio’s.

Accordingly, Joseph and Jaime, together with their mother Maria Igne, filed a
complaint for annulment of agreement, waiver, extrajudicial settlement of est. and the
certificates issued by virtue of such agreement against Ramon Cheng. (First case). A
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was filed by defendant and was granted by
RTC. Thereafter, Cheng and Lucina (mother of Ramon) filed the same complaint but
later MOVED for its dismissal and prayed that it be without PREJUDICE. The same
was granted. To the grant of the dismissal, as moved by the petitioner, the defendant
prayed for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the dismissal should be made
WITH prejudice under the "two-dismissal rule"

ISSUE: Whether the "two-dismissal rule" is applicable in this case? 

HELD: NO. As a general rule, dismissals under Sec 1 Rule 17 are without prejudice
except when it is the second time that the plaintiff CAUSED its dismissal. 

On appeal to CA, the Court of Appeals rendered the decision in the first
certiorari case dismissing the petition. The appellate court ruled that Ramon Ching's
reliance on the "two-dismissal rule" was misplaced since the rule involves two
motions for dismissals filed by the plaintiff only. In this case, it was found that the
dismissal of the first case was upon the motion of the defendants, while the dismissal
of the second case was at the instance of the plaintiffs.

You might also like