Dismissal which bars refiling

Generally, the dismissal of a complaint, action or petition does not bar its refiling. If short, even if dismissed, plaintiff's action is not entirely lost.

Rule 16, Section 1 covers the instances when a motion to dismiss may be filed. Under Section 5 of the same Rule, the grant of a motion to dismiss does not bar the re-filing of the complaint except when the dismissal is based on res judicata, prescription, extinguishment of claim, or unenforceability. (G.R. No. 175507. October 8, 2014)

Res judicata means that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment. Prescription means that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Extinguishment means that the claim or demand has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished. Unenforceability refers to the rule that the claim is unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

As a general rule, dismissals under Section 1 of Rule 17 are without prejudice except when it is the second time that the plaintiff caused its dismissal. Accordingly, for a dismissal to operate as an adjudication upon the merits, i.e, with prejudice to the re-filing of the same claim, the following requisites must be present:

[1] There was a previous case that was dismissed by a competent court;
[2] Both cases were based on or include the same claim;
[3] Both notices for dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; and
[4] When the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff was consented to by the defendant on the ground that the latter paid and satisfied all the claims of the former.