PINGA V.

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO HELD/RATIO:

G.R. No. 170354 (June 30, 2006)
DOCTRINE:
Rule 17, Section 3; Dismissal of Counterclaims
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.
EMERGENCY RECIT:
Santiago Heirs filed a complaint against Pinga and Saavedra. Pinga filed Counterclaim. RTC
dismisses first complaint because of failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time.
RTC allows Pinga to present evidence ex- parte. Santiagos filed MR to disallow granted. Pinga
files MR, but Santiagos file Opposition arguing that: the dismissal of the complaint carries with it
the dismissal of the compulsory counterclaims. RTC agrees and denies Pingas MR. SC
reverses; remands to RTC for for trial on the merits of the counterclaim (see doctrine).
FACTS:
Heirs of German Santiago, represented by Fernando Santiago, filed a complaint for
injunction in the RTC of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur against Eduardo Pinga and
Vicente Saavedra.
o Defendants had been unlawfully entering the coco lands of the respondent,
cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees
therein.
o Respondents prayed that petitioner and Saavedra be enjoined from
committing "acts of depredation" on their properties, and ordered to pay
damages.
Pinga and Saavedras Answer with Counterclaim disputed respondents
ownership/alleged forcible re-entry and damages (Php21,000 + costs of suit)
o Pingas father, Edmundo Pinga, from whom defendants derived their
interest in the properties, had been in possession thereof since the 1930s.
o Respondents had already been ordered ejected from the properties after a
complaint for forcible entry was filed by the heirs of Edmundo Pinga
o Respondents previous application for free patent over the properties was
rejected
RTC already ordered the dismissal of the complaint after Santiago Heirs counsel had
sought the postponement of the hearing scheduled then. Reconsidered, but later on
Santiago Heirs failed to present their evidence, and their counsel only sent a
representative who sought postponement.
o Counsel for Pingas opposed postponement, moved for dismissal.
o The RTC noted that it was obvious that respondents had failed to prosecute
the case for an unreasonable length of time.
Complaint was dismissed. At the same time, the RTC allowed then-defendants
(Pinga) "to present their evidence ex-parte." Respondents Santiago filed MR that their
complaint be reinstated and that the petitioner be disallowed from presenting evidence
ex-parte. GRANTED. (no opposition)
Pingas filed MR, denied.
o Santiagos filed an Opposition to Defendants Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration, wherein they argued that the prevailing jurisprudential rule
is that ... the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the
compulsory counterclaims."
Case elevated to SC by way of a Petition for Review under Rule 45.
1. NO. 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.
RTC justified the dismissal of the counterclaim on the ground that "there is no
opposition to [plaintiffs] Motion for Reconsideration [seeking the dismissal of the
counterclaim], but this is a hollow explanation.
Rule 17, 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. This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits,
unless otherwise declared by the court.
The dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is evidently a confirmation of the failure of
evidence to prove his cause of action outlined therein, hence the dismissal is
considered, as a matter of evidence, an adjudication on the merits. This does not,
however, mean that there is likewise such absence of evidence to prove
defendant's counterclaim although the same arises out of the subject matter of
the complaint which was merely terminated for lack of proof.
The complaint can accordingly be dismissed, but relief can nevertheless be granted as
a matter of course to defendant on his counterclaim as alleged and proved, with or
without any reservation therefor on his part, unless from his conduct, express or
implied, he has virtually consented to the concomitant dismissal of his counterclaim.
The survival of the counterclaim despite the dismissal of the complaint under Section
3 stood irrespective of whether the counterclaim was permissive or compulsory.
Accordingly, the RTC clearly erred when it ordered the dismissal of the counterclaim,
since Section 3, Rule 17 mandates that the dismissal of the complaint is without
prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute the counterclaim in the same or
separate action. If the RTC were to dismiss the counterclaim, it should be on the
merits of such counterclaim. Reversal of the RTC is in order, and a remand is
necessary for trial on the merits of the counterclaim.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

ISSUE:
1. WON the dismissal of the complaint necessarily carries the dismissal of the compulsory
counterclaim.