Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METALS ENGINEERING RESOURCES CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 155701 2015-03-11	LIM TECK CHUAN v. SERAFIN UY REYES, J.
As can be gleaned from the assailed orders, the RTC erred when it dismissed the case when the present rules state that the dismissal shall be limited only to the complaint. A dismissal of an action is different from a mere dismissal of the complaint. For this reason, since only the complaint and not the action is dismissed, the defendant in spite of said dismissal may still prosecute his counterclaim in the same action.[40] The case of Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago[41] is quite instructive which this Court finds worth reiterating. In Pinga, the Court clearly stated that the dismissal of the complaint does not necessarily result to the dismissal of the counterclaim, abandoning the rulings in Metals Engineering Resources Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[42] International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[43] and BA Finance Corporation v. Co.[44] The Court held that: At present, even Section 2, concerning dismissals on motion of the plaintiff, now recognizes the right of the defendant to prosecute the counterclaim either in the same or separate action notwithstanding the dismissal of the complaint, and without regard as to the permissive or compulsory nature of the counterclaim.
	GR No. 207376 2014-08-06	AIDA PADILLA v. GLOBE ASIATIQUE REALTY HOLDINGS CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Metals Engineering Resources Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[33] we reversed the trial court's order allowing private respondent to proceed with the presentation of his evidence in support of his counterclaim after the complaint was dismissed for not paying the correct docket fee and hence the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. We held that if the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main action of the case and dismisses the same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary to the principal controversy, must likewise be dismissed since no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim.[34]
	GR No. 189532 2014-06-11	VIRGINIA S. DIO v. SUBIC BAY MARINE EXPLORATORIUM PEREZ, J.
In the significant case of Pinga v. Heirs of German Santiago,[23] this Court speaking through Justice Dante Tinga, resolved the nagging question as to whether or not the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the counterclaim. Putting to rest the remaining confusion occasioned by Metals Engineering Resources Corp. v. Court of Appeals[24] and BA Finance Corporation v. Co,[25] the Court articulated that, in light of the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the correct and prevailing doctrine is as follows:To be certain, when the Court promulgated the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amended Rule 17, those previous jural doctrines that were inconsistent with the new rules incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were implicitly abandoned insofar as incidents arising after the effectivity of the new procedural rules on 1 July 1997. BA Finance, or even the doctrine that a counterclaim may be necessarily dismissed along with the complaint, clearly conflicts with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The abandonment of BA Finance as doctrine extends as far back as 1997, when the Court adopted the new Rules of Civil Procedure. If, since then, such abandonment has not been affirmed in jurisprudence, it is only because no proper case has arisen that would warrant express confirmation of the new rule. That opportunity is here and now, and we thus rule that the dismissal of a complaint due to fault of the plaintiff is without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute any pending counterclaims of whatever nature in the same or separate action. We confirm that BA Finance and all previous rulings of the Court that arc inconsistent with this present holding arc now abandoned.
	GR NO. 172242 2007-08-14	PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD. v. DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the cases of Metal Engineering Resources Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[50] International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[51] and BA Finance Corporation v. Co.,[52] the Court ruled that if the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main action of the case and dismisses the same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary to the principal controversy, must likewise be dismissed since no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the counterclaim.[53] If we follow the aforesaid pronouncement of the Court in the cases mentioned above, the counterclaim of the herein petitioner being compulsory in nature must also be dismissed together with the Complaint. However, in the case of Pinga vs. Heirs of German Santiago,[54] the Court explicitly expressed that:Similarly, Justice Feria notes that "the present rule reaffirms the right of the defendant to move for the dismissal of the complaint and to prosecute his counterclaim, as stated in the separate opinion [of Justice Regalado in BA Finance]. Retired Court of Appeals Justice Hererra pronounces that the amendment to Section 3, Rule 17 [of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure] settles that "nagging question "whether the dismissal of the complaint carries with it the dismissal of the counterclaim, and opines that by reason of the amendments, the rulings in Metals Engineering, International Container, and BA Finance "may be deemed abandoned." x x x.
	GR NO. 170354 2006-06-30	EDGARDO PINGA v. HEIRS OF GERMAN SANTIAGO TINGA, J.
There is no doubt that under the 1964 Rules, the dismissal of a complaint due to the failure of the plaintiff to appear during pre-trial, as what had happened in Sta. Maria, fell within the coverage of Section 3, Rule 17. On the other hand, Section 2 was clearly limited in scope to those dismissals sustained at the instance of the plaintiff.[39] Nonetheless, by the early 1990s, jurisprudence was settling on a rule that compulsory counterclaims were necessarily terminated upon the dismissal of the complaint not only if such dismissal was upon motion of the plaintiff, but at the instance of the defendant as well. Two decisions from that period stand out in this regard, Metals Engineering Resources Corp. v. Court of Appeals [40] and International Container Terminal Services v. Court of Appeals.[41]