Josefina Mortel vs Aspriras et al

written by Howard

G.R. No. L-9152 – 100 Phil. 586 – Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Filing of Complaints – Dismissal Without Prejudice 

Josefina Mortel was induced by Anacleto Aspiras to marry him in Manila. Mortel agreed and so she went to Manila. Anacleto accompanied her to the city hall where Anacleto introduced Cesar Aspiras as his nephew; that Cesar would be Anacleto’s proxy in the marriage ceremony. After the marriage ceremony, she lived with Anacleto as his wife.

In 1954, she gave birth to a boy but then she found out that Anacleto was already married. She then filed an annulment case with damages against the two Aspiras (Cesar turned out to be the son of Anacleto).

But later on, Mortel filed a motion asking for the dismissal of her complaint as she alleged that the case was merely filed by her in the heat of the moment. At the same time, Aspiras filed a motion to dismiss too alleging that Mortel has no cause of action. The court granted the dismissal.

But later on, Mortel revived the case by re-filing it. The court dismissed the same upon motion of Aspiras; the trial court ruled that the re-filed case is a restatement of the previously dismissed case; that the adjudication in the previous case which was “dismissed upon separate motions of both parties” operates as an adjudication on the merits.

ISSUE: Whether or not the previous case filed by Mortel was dismissed with prejudice.

HELD: No. The trial court based its ruling on the following provisions of the [old] Rules of Court:

“SECTION 1.  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. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that . . ..

“SEC. 4.  Effect of dismissal on other grounds. – Unless otherwise ordered by the court, any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, operates an adjudication upon the merits.” (Rule 30, Rules of Court.)

What Section 1 contemplates is dismissal by the plaintiff by filing a NOTICE OF DISMISSAL. Mortel did not file such. What she filed was a motion ASKING the court to order the dismissal of the case she filed. Such motion does not fall within the purview of “notice” contemplated in Section 2.

But still Section 4 states “any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, operates an adjudication upon the merits.”

Still NO because Section 4 also states “unless otherwise provided” and the provision which states the exception is:

“SEC. 2.  By order of the court. – Except as provided in the preceding section, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. . . . Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice.. . . “

The dismissal issued by the court in the previous civil case falls under the above section. Hence, the dismissal shall be without prejudice and therefore, Mortel can re-file the case against Aspiras.

Read full text.