DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS UNDER RULE 17 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT
(Focus: Section 1 – Dismissal upon Notice by Plaintiff; The Two-Dismissal Rule)

1. OVERVIEW OF RULE 17

Rule 17 of the Rules of Court governs the dismissal of actions in Philippine civil procedure. Dismissals may occur (1) upon the initiative of the plaintiff, (2) upon the instance or motion of the defendant, or (3) by the court motu proprio (on its own). This discussion focuses on Section 1 of Rule 17 – “Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff” – and the two-dismissal rule.

A. What is Dismissal Upon Notice by Plaintiff?

Under Section 1, Rule 17, the plaintiff may unilaterally dismiss an action by merely filing a notice of dismissal, provided that:

No Answer or Motion for Summary Judgment has yet been served by the defendant(s).
The plaintiff files the notice of dismissal before the service of such answer or motion for summary judgment.

Effect of Dismissal Upon Notice

Without Prejudice: As a general rule, if the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal before the defendant has served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal is deemed without prejudice to the filing of another action for the same cause.
With Prejudice: If the dismissal is the second time around (under the two-dismissal rule) or if the notice itself says it is “with prejudice,” then the dismissal is treated as an adjudication on the merits that bars the plaintiff from refiling the same claim.

2. THE TWO-DISMISSAL RULE

A. Definition and Purpose

The two-dismissal rule provides that if a plaintiff has twice dismissed an action based on or including the same claim, the second notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits (i.e., with prejudice). The main rationale is to prevent vexatious litigation and forum shopping, ensuring plaintiffs do not harass defendants by repeatedly filing and dismissing the same action at will.

B. Legal Basis

The relevant portion of Section 1, Rule 17 states:

“Unless otherwise specified in the notice of dismissal, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that 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.”

In simpler terms:

The first valid notice of dismissal (filed before the defendant’s answer or motion for summary judgment) is ordinarily without prejudice.
The second notice of dismissal of a substantially similar action is with prejudice and bars another filing of the same cause of action.

C. Requisites for the Application of the Two-Dismissal Rule

Two Previous Dismissals: There must be two notices of dismissal, each properly filed before the defendant filed an answer or motion for summary judgment.
Identity of the Cause of Action: The second case that is being dismissed should be based on or include the same claim as the first case that was dismissed.
Dismissals in a Competent Court: Each dismissal must be in a court of proper jurisdiction over the action so that the dismissals are valid.

When these elements are present, the second dismissal is deemed “with prejudice,” and the plaintiff is barred from refiling the same claim.

D. Effect of the Two-Dismissal Rule

If the two-dismissal rule applies, the second dismissal is considered an adjudication on the merits. This means that the cause of action is already foreclosed, akin to res judicata, and cannot be re-litigated.

3. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS & JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES

Timing is Key
- The right to dismiss upon notice is lost once the defendant files either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. After that point, any dismissal must either be by motion for dismissal under Section 2 of Rule 17 (requiring court approval) or by stipulation or settlement.
“Same Claim” Requirement
- Courts examine whether the second suit involves the same parties, same subject matter, and same cause of action. Even if the second complaint is worded differently, if it arises from the same transaction or occurrence and essentially seeks the same relief, the two-dismissal rule may apply.
Formal vs. Substantive Aspects
- Merely labeling a dismissal “with prejudice” does not automatically foreclose a new lawsuit if the dismissal is defective or if the court was not of competent jurisdiction. Conversely, even if the notice does not say “with prejudice,” if it is the second dismissal for the same claim, it will be treated as with prejudice by operation of law.
Court Intervention if There is Abuse
- Courts are wary of unscrupulous litigants repeatedly dismissing and refiling suits to harass defendants. The two-dismissal rule protects defendants from undue litigation costs, possible double jeopardy in time and expense, and fosters efficiency.
Case Law and Illustrations
- Philippine jurisprudence consistently applies the two-dismissal rule to discourage forum-shopping. Cases illustrate that even where the first dismissal was in another forum or in an earlier stage (like in the barangay conciliation process if it effectively ends the same cause of action in court), courts will see if the doctrine properly applies.

4. PROCEDURAL STEPS & LEGAL FORMS (ILLUSTRATIVE)

A. Filing the Notice of Dismissal

Caption: Same as in the Complaint.
Title: “Notice of Dismissal.”
Body:
1. State the case number and title.
2. Mention that no answer or motion for summary judgment has been served yet.
3. Clearly express the intention to dismiss.
4. Indicate if the dismissal is “without prejudice” or “with prejudice” (though the effect will be determined by law).
Signature Block: Signed by plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel, indicating counsel’s address, PTR/IBP roll number, MCLE Compliance (if required), etc.

B. Court Action

Once the notice is filed and the requisites are met (i.e., no answer or motion for summary judgment served), the dismissal is accomplished upon notice—no need for a court order. However, courts typically issue a formal order noting the dismissal and stating whether it is with or without prejudice.

C. Checking for Prior Dismissals

Plaintiffs (and counsel) must ensure that no prior dismissal of the same claim was made in any competent court. If a previous dismissal exists, the second dismissal is automatically with prejudice, imposing a bar to refiling.

5. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAWYERS

Candor to the Court:
- A lawyer must disclose previous cases or dismissals involving the same cause of action to avoid misleading the court. Concealing prior dismissals can lead to sanctions, including contempt or disciplinary action for violating the lawyer’s duty of candor.
Avoiding Frivolous or Harassing Litigation:
- The two-dismissal rule underscores a policy against harassing the same defendant with repeated suits. Lawyers should advise their clients on the consequences of repeated dismissals.
Duty to Advise Client:
- An attorney must properly advise a client about the finality and preclusive effects of the second dismissal when the same cause of action is dismissed for the second time, ensuring the client is fully informed of the risk that the claim will be forever barred.

6. SUMMARY

Section 1 of Rule 17 allows the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case by filing a simple notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
This voluntary dismissal is generally without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff can re-file.
The two-dismissal rule provides an exception: if the plaintiff dismisses a second case involving the same claim, the dismissal acts as a judgment on the merits—with prejudice—barring the plaintiff from refiling the same claim.
Philippine jurisprudence strongly enforces the rule to protect defendants from vexatious litigation and to uphold judicial efficiency.
Lawyers must remain vigilant about prior dismissals and counsel their clients accordingly to avoid inadvertently triggering the with-prejudice effect.

In essence, dismissal upon notice by the plaintiff is a powerful but carefully regulated procedural tool. While it promotes efficiency by allowing a swift end to litigation when the plaintiff so desires, it is balanced by the two-dismissal rule, which prevents abuse by making the second notice of dismissal conclusive and with prejudice. Proper adherence to Rule 17’s provisions, coupled with honest and ethical lawyering, ensures the orderly and fair conduct of civil litigation in the Philippines.