FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari that questions the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a civil case. The petitioner initially filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, seeking to have his marriage declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity. However, at a later stage, the petitioner lost interest in the case and filed a motion to withdraw his petition. The respondent opposed the motion and invoked Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, arguing that her counterclaims should be separately adjudicated. The petitioner contended that the respondent's counterclaims should be barred because she did not file a manifestation within 15 days from the notice of his motion to withdraw. The RTC granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and declared the respondent's counterclaim for independent adjudication. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied. He appealed to the CA, but the petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration with the CA was also denied, prompting him to elevate the case to the Supreme Court through this petition. The main issue is whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC's orders that declared the respondent's counterclaim for independent adjudication. The petition is considered meritorious because Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court states that if a counterclaim has been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service of the plaintiff's motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall only be limited to the complaint.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the counterclaim should be allowed to remain for independent adjudication before the same trial court.

RULING:

1. The petition is meritorious. The Court held that under Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, if a counterclaim has been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff's motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. Thus, the counterclaim should not be allowed to remain for independent adjudication before the same trial court.

PRINCIPLES:

• Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court provides for the procedure relative to counterclaims in the event that a complaint is dismissed at the plaintiff's instance.

• If a counterclaim has been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff's motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint.

• Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this provision shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action.