PINGA vs.

HEIRS OF SANTIAGO plaintiff's complaint is evidently a confirmation of the failure of evidence

GR No. 170354
Facts:
The Heirs of Santiago filed an injunction against Pinga alleging that
Pinga had been unlawfully entering the coco lands of the respondent
cutting wood and bamboos and harvesting the fruits of the coconut trees.
As a counterclaim, Pinga contests the ownership of the lands to which he
was harvesting the fruits. However, due to failures of Heirs of Santiago to
attend the hearings, the court ordered the dismissal of said case.
Respondents thus filed a Motion for Reconsideration to ask for the entire
action to be dismissed and not to allow petitioner to present evidence ex
parte. Said motion was granted by the RTC, hence the counterclaim was
dismissed.
The lower court further ruled that compulsory counterclaims cannot be
adjudicated independently of plaintiff’s cause of action vis a vis the
dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the
counterclaim. Petitioner therefore elevated the matter to the Supreme
Court via petition for certiorari under Rule 45 on pure questions of law
also averring that respondent’s motive for seeking the dismissal of their
entire case is to avoid putting their ownership in controversy in the
counterclaim.
Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of the original complaint affects that
of the compulsory counterclaim.
Held:
No, the counterclaim herein can stand on its own. The dismissal
of the complaint does not 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 his counterclaim.
Section 3 contemplates a dismissal not procured by plaintiff, albeit
justified by causes imputable to him and which, in the present case, was
petitioner's failure to appear at the pre-trial. This situation is also covered
by Section 3, as extended by judicial interpretation, and is ordered upon
motion of defendant or motu proprio by the court. Here, the issue of
whether defendant has a pending counterclaim, permissive or
compulsory, is not of determinative significance. The dismissal of
to prove his cause of action outlined therein, hence the dismissal is
considered, as a matter of evidence, an adjudication on the merits.
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 present rule embodied in Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 17
ordains a more equitable disposition of the counterclaims by ensuring
that any judgment thereon is based on the merit of the counterclaim itself
and not on 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 trial court is not precluded from
dismissing it under the amended rules, provided that the judgment or
order dismissing the counterclaim is premised on those defects. At the
same time, if the counterclaim is justified, the amended rules now
unequivocally protect such counterclaim from peremptory dismissal by
reason of the dismissal of the complaint.
Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
“If for any cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of his
presentation of his evidence x x x the complaint may be dismissed upon
motion of the 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.”