Dick Dixson had sons with different women – (i) Dexter with longtime partner Delia and (ii) Dongdong and Dingdong with his housemaid Divina. When Dick fell ill in 2014, he entrusted all his property titles and shares of stock in various companies to Delia who, in turn, handed them to Dexter for safekeeping. After the death of Dick, Dexter induced Dongdong and Dingdong to sign an agreement and waiver of their right to Dick’s estate in consideration of PhP 45 million. As Dexter reneged on his promise to pay, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila for annulment of the agreement and waiver. The summons and complaint were received by Dalia, the housemaid of Dexter, on the day it was first served. Dexter filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person. RTC Manila granted the motion to dismiss.
Dongdong and Dingdong thereafter filed a new complaint against Dexter for annulment of the agreement and waiver. Before Dexter could file his answer, Dongdong and Dingdong filed a motion to withdraw their complaint praying that it be dismissed without prejudice. An Order was issued granting the motion to withdraw without prejudice on the basis that the summons had not yet been served on Dexter. Dexter filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. He argued that the dismissal should have been with prejudice under the “two-dismissal rule” of Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, in view of the previous dismissal of the first case.
Will the two-dismissal rule apply making the second dismissal with prejudice? (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the two-dismissal rule will not apply to make the second dismissal with prejudice.
Under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, the two-dismissal rule applies only when both previous dismissals were initiated by the plaintiff upon notice at his own instance. Where a previous action was dismissed upon a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, the two-dismissal rule does not apply.
Here, the first dismissal was granted by the court upon Dexter's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, not upon a notice of dismissal by Dongdong and Dingdong. Because the first dismissal was at the defendant's instance, the requirement of two plaintiff-initiated dismissals is absent.
Therefore, the two-dismissal rule is inapplicable, and the second dismissal remains without prejudice.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What is the primary requirement for the two-dismissal rule to operate as an adjudication upon the merits under Rule 17, Section 1?
The two-dismissal rule requires that both prior dismissals be initiated voluntarily by the plaintiff upon notice.
What is the legal effect of a plaintiff filing a first notice of dismissal before service of answer under Rule 17, Section 1?
A first notice of dismissal filed by a plaintiff before service of answer is generally without prejudice.
Why does a court order granting a defendant's motion to dismiss not count under the two-dismissal rule?
The two-dismissal rule applies only to voluntary dismissals initiated by the plaintiff, not involuntary dismissals on motion.
When may a plaintiff dismiss an action as a matter of right by simply filing a notice of dismissal?
Under Rule 17, Section 1, a plaintiff may dismiss by notice at any time before service of answer or motion for summary judgment.
What is the underlying public policy rationale behind the two-dismissal rule under the Rules of Civil Procedure?
The two-dismissal rule prevents plaintiffs from harassing defendants through repeated filings and voluntary withdrawals.
Learn more about these topics
1. Two-Dismissal Rule Requisites
Under Rule 17, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the two-dismissal rule applies when a plaintiff twice dismisses an action based on or including the same claim by filing a notice of dismissal. For the rule to apply and operate as an adjudication upon the merits with prejudice, both previous dismissals must be initiated voluntarily by the plaintiff at his own instance. If a prior dismissal was granted by the court upon a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant, that dismissal cannot be counted toward the two-dismissal rule.
2. Voluntary Dismissal Notice
A plaintiff may dismiss an action 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. Such dismissal is generally without prejudice, unless otherwise stated in the notice. However, under the two-dismissal rule, a notice of dismissal 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. The rule prevents harassment of defendants through repeated filings.
3. Inapplicability of Bar
The two-dismissal rule serves as an exception to the general rule that dismissals prior to answer are without prejudice. Because it operates as res judicata barring future refiling, the two-dismissal rule is strictly construed. A dismissal ordered by the court upon the defendant's motion to dismiss—such as for lack of jurisdiction over the person or improper service of summons—is an involuntary dismissal. Consequently, an involuntary dismissal initiated by a defendant can never combine with a subsequent voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff to trigger the bar.