G.R. No. 135803 - O.B. JOVENIR CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OSCAR B. JOVENIR AND GREGORIO LIONGSON, VS. MACAMIR REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SPOUSES ROSAURO AND GLORIA MIRANDA AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly considered the complaint withdrawn without prejudice. [12] The battle then shifted to Civil Case No. 97-379, which had been raffled to Branch 136 of the Makati RTC. On 4 March 1997, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the second complaint on the ground of forum-shopping. They pointed out that at the time of the filing of the second complaint on 17 February 1997, the first complaint was still pending. The Makati RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss in an Order [13] dated 23 May 1997, observing that at the time the Motion to Withdraw Complaint was filed, none of the defendants had filed any answer or any responsive pleading. Thus, it was then within respondents' right to cause the dismissal of the complaint without having to await action of the court on their motion. [14] This Order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals Special Sixth Division in its Decision [14] dated 23 June 1998 after petitioners had assailed the RTC's order via a special civil action for certiorari filed with the appellate court. [16] Hence, the present petition. Petitioners now argue that under Section 1 of Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in effect at the time of these antecedents, the plaintiff may obtain the dismissal of his own complaint before a responsive pleading has been filed through the filing of a notice of dismissal. However, respondents in this case did not file a notice of dismissal, but instead lodged a Motion to Withdraw Complaint, a motion which requires affirmative action from the court before the complaint may be deemed dismissed. Since the Makati RTC had granted the motion only on 24 February 1997, the first complaint had not yet been withdrawn as of 17 February 1997, when the second complaint was filed. It is thus posited that the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to the second complaint was false, in that it averred that the first complaint "was withdrawn on February 13, 1997" when in fact the motion to withdraw complaint was granted only 11 days after. In sum, respondents had violated the procedural rules against forum-shopping, which at that time were incorporated in Administrative Circular No. 04-94 of the Supreme Court. We find no error on the part of the lower courts since the denial of the motion to dismiss is wholly in accord with the Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1964 Rules of Civil Procedure stated: Dismissal by the plaintiff An action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice , except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim. A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court. [17] Indubitably, the provision ordained the dismissal of t