The dismissal of a case is one of the most important procedural events in Philippine law. A dismissal can end a lawsuit before trial, after partial proceedings, or even after years of litigation. It can happen because the complaint is defective, because the court has no jurisdiction, because the plaintiff failed to prosecute, because the parties settled, because the action has already been decided elsewhere, because the claim has prescribed, because a required condition was not met, or because the law itself bars the action.

But “dismissal” is not a single concept. Under Philippine law, dismissal can mean very different things depending on the kind of case involved and the ground invoked. A dismissal in a civil case is not always the same as dismissal in a criminal case, a labor case, an administrative case, or an appellate proceeding. Even within civil procedure alone, a dismissal may be with prejudice or without prejudice, voluntary or involuntary, procedural or substantive, curable or fatal, immediately appealable or reviewable only through a special remedy.

This article explains the subject broadly and deeply in Philippine legal context: what dismissal means, the major kinds of dismissal, the grounds, the procedural effects, the difference between dismissal with and without prejudice, the special rules in civil and criminal cases, dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, dismissal for failure to prosecute, dismissal for improper pleading, dismissal in appeals, and the practical consequences of dismissal.

This is a legal-information article, not legal advice for a specific case.

I. What dismissal means in law

A dismissal is the termination of a case or proceeding by order of a court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body, without a full adjudication on the merits in the ordinary sense—or sometimes after an adjudication that effectively bars refiling.

The phrase sounds simple, but the legal effect depends on the reason for dismissal.

A dismissal may mean:

the court refused to entertain the case at all,
the plaintiff withdrew it,
the complaint was legally insufficient,
the plaintiff failed to comply with procedure,
the court lacked jurisdiction,
the claim was already barred,
the defendant successfully challenged the action,
the prosecution failed in a criminal case,
the case became moot,
or the case was terminated in a way that prevents it from being filed again.

So one cannot understand dismissal merely by the word itself. One must ask: dismissed why, by whom, at what stage, and with what effect?

II. The first essential distinction: dismissal with prejudice versus without prejudice

This is one of the most important distinctions in Philippine procedure.

Dismissal without prejudice

A dismissal without prejudice generally means the case is terminated for now, but the plaintiff or complainant may still file the case again, subject to law, prescription, and procedural requirements.

This usually happens when the dismissal is based on a correctable defect, such as:

improper venue in some situations,
failure to comply with certain procedural prerequisites,
lack of jurisdiction,
prematurity,
failure to attach required certifications,
failure to prosecute under circumstances that do not permanently bar the claim,
or voluntary dismissal before the defendant has served the appropriate responsive pleading, depending on the rule and stage.

Dismissal with prejudice

A dismissal with prejudice generally means the case is terminated finally as to that claim or cause of action, and refiling is barred.

This may happen where:

the dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits,
the action is barred by prior judgment,
the claim is extinguished,
the dismissal is based on prescription or some other permanent legal bar,
the plaintiff repeatedly files and dismisses the same claim under rules limiting such tactics,
or the court expressly dismisses in a manner that precludes refiling.

This distinction matters more than many litigants realize. Two cases may both be “dismissed,” yet one may be refiled tomorrow while the other is gone for good.

III. Dismissal in civil cases: the broad framework

In civil procedure, dismissal may occur through several routes.

The major categories usually include:

dismissal upon notice by the plaintiff,
dismissal upon motion of the plaintiff,
dismissal upon motion of the defendant,
dismissal by the court on procedural or jurisdictional grounds,
dismissal for failure to prosecute,
dismissal because of settlement, compromise, or satisfaction,
dismissal because the case has become moot,
dismissal in appellate proceedings,
or dismissal under special procedural rules.

Each has different consequences.

IV. Voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff

Philippine civil procedure recognizes situations where the plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action.

This can happen in different procedural forms, depending on the stage of the case.

1. Dismissal by notice

At an early stage, the plaintiff may in some cases dismiss the complaint by mere notice, before the defendant has served the kind of responsive pleading contemplated by the rules. This is often called voluntary dismissal by notice.

At that stage, the dismissal is generally without prejudice unless the rules or circumstances provide otherwise.

But this is not an unlimited right. If the plaintiff repeatedly dismisses the same claim, procedural rules may eventually make a second voluntary dismissal operate more seriously, sometimes as a bar.

2. Dismissal by motion of plaintiff

At a later stage, the plaintiff may no longer be able to dismiss by notice alone and may need leave of court. The court may grant dismissal on terms it considers proper.

Once the defendant has engaged substantially, especially through pleadings seeking affirmative relief, the plaintiff’s control over dismissal is less absolute.

3. Why voluntary dismissal matters

Voluntary dismissal allows a plaintiff to withdraw a weak, defective, premature, or strategically mistimed case. But it also protects defendants from harassment through repeated filing and withdrawal.

So the law balances plaintiff autonomy and defendant fairness.

V. Involuntary dismissal in civil cases

An involuntary dismissal is one brought about not by the plaintiff’s simple decision to withdraw, but by the court or by a successful challenge from the adverse party.

This is one of the most common forms of dismissal.

Involuntary dismissal may happen because:

the complaint states no cause of action,
the court lacks jurisdiction,
venue is improper,
the action is barred by prior judgment,
the claim is barred by prescription,
the plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent,
there is another action pending involving the same parties and cause,
the plaintiff failed to prosecute,
the plaintiff failed to obey court orders or procedural rules,
or evidence presented by the plaintiff is insufficient in a context allowing dismissal.

The legal effect depends on the specific ground.

VI. Motion to dismiss: the traditional concept

In Philippine civil procedure, a defendant may challenge the complaint through a motion invoking recognized grounds for dismissal, subject to the current structure of the Rules of Court and how certain defenses are raised either in a motion or as affirmative defenses.

Historically and doctrinally, the grounds for dismissal often include matters such as:

lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
lack of jurisdiction over the person in certain contexts,
improper venue,
plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue,
failure to state a cause of action,
noncompliance with a condition precedent,
litis pendentia or pendency of another action,
res judicata or prior judgment,
prescription,
extinguishment of claim,
unenforceability under particular legal rules,
or similar bars.

In current practice, some matters may now be raised as affirmative defenses rather than through a separate motion in the old style. But the conceptual grounds remain essential to understanding dismissal.

VII. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for dismissal

Jurisdiction is a foundational issue.

If the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the case cannot validly proceed no matter how strong the claim appears factually. Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by law, not by agreement or waiver.

A case may therefore be dismissed because:

it was filed in the wrong court level,
the action belongs to a special court or tribunal,
the claim falls within exclusive administrative or quasi-judicial jurisdiction,
the amount involved places it elsewhere,
or the nature of the case puts it outside the court’s statutory power.

Effect of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally not a decision on the substantive merits of the controversy. It usually means the case may be refiled in the proper forum, assuming the claim has not prescribed and no other bar exists.

This is a classic example of dismissal usually without prejudice, though delay may still cause serious practical harm if the claim becomes time-barred.

VIII. Lack of jurisdiction over the person

A court may also face issues regarding jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, usually through improper service of summons or other defects in how the defendant was brought under the court’s authority.

If the court never properly acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, proceedings may be vulnerable and dismissal may follow if the defect is not cured.

This type of dismissal is different from dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. One concerns power over the class of case; the other concerns power over the party.

IX. Improper venue

Venue concerns the place where the action should be filed. Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, venue is often waivable if not timely raised, except in situations where law makes venue more strict.

A case may be dismissed or challenged for improper venue if it was filed in the wrong territorial court under the applicable rules.

Improper venue does not usually mean the claim itself is invalid. It generally means the case was brought in the wrong place. Accordingly, dismissal on this ground is often not an adjudication on the merits and may allow refiling in the proper venue.

X. Failure to state a cause of action

A complaint may be dismissed if, even assuming the alleged facts are true, those facts do not legally entitle the plaintiff to relief.

This is one of the most important dismissal grounds in civil litigation.

The question is not whether the plaintiff can prove the facts yet. The question is whether the complaint, on its face, alleges the essential elements of a legally recognizable claim.

A case may therefore be dismissed if the complaint is:

conclusory,
missing essential allegations,
legally insufficient,
internally defective,
or based on a theory not recognized by law.

Why this matters

A plaintiff may genuinely feel wronged and still fail to state a cause of action in legal terms. Courts do not dismiss because the plaintiff lost emotionally; they dismiss because the pleading does not show a right that the law can enforce in that action.

Dismissal on this ground can be devastating if amendment is not allowed or if the deficiency is fundamental.

XI. Failure to comply with a condition precedent

Some actions cannot be validly filed unless certain prior steps are taken first.

Examples may include:

barangay conciliation where required,
earnest efforts toward compromise in family-related cases where the law requires them,
prior demand in some contractual or possession-related contexts,
or compliance with special statutory prerequisites.

If the plaintiff files too early, without satisfying the required condition precedent, dismissal may follow.

This kind of dismissal is often without prejudice, because the defect may be curable by first complying with the required step and then refiling if still timely.

XII. Litis pendentia and forum-related dismissal

A case may be dismissed because there is another action pending between the same parties involving the same cause or relief.

This is often described through the concept of litis pendentia, designed to prevent multiple suits over essentially the same controversy.

Philippine law also strongly condemns forum shopping, where a party seeks relief from multiple courts or tribunals over the same facts in the hope of obtaining a favorable result from one.

This can lead to dismissal and other sanctions.

Certification against forum shopping

A failure to comply properly with the certification requirement may itself cause dismissal. This is not a trivial technicality. It is a serious procedural obligation intended to protect the judicial system from abusive multiple filings.

Depending on the nature of the defect and the surrounding circumstances, dismissal for forum-shopping-related issues can be severe and may even be with prejudice in the appropriate case.

XIII. Res judicata and prior judgment

One of the strongest grounds for dismissal is that the matter has already been decided.

If there is a final judgment by a competent court on the same cause of action or issue, the law does not allow parties to endlessly relitigate the same controversy.

This doctrine appears through res judicata, in broad terms.

Its purpose is finality, stability, and protection against repeated harassment through litigation.

If the elements are present, dismissal on this ground generally has final effect and bars refiling.

This is dismissal with real substantive weight.

XIV. Prescription as a ground for dismissal

A claim may be dismissed because it was filed too late.

Prescription means the law has fixed a period within which the action must be brought. Once that period lapses, the right to sue may be lost.

If the complaint shows on its face, or the established facts demonstrate, that the action has prescribed, dismissal may follow.

This kind of dismissal is usually fatal, because time-bar defects are ordinarily not cured by simply filing again.

XV. Extinguishment of the claim

A case may also be dismissed because the cause of action no longer exists.

This may happen where:

the debt has been paid,
the obligation has been novated or extinguished,
the contract has been rescinded and settled,
the claim has been waived or condoned,
the relief has become impossible,
or events after filing have legally extinguished the controversy.

This ground often arises in conjunction with compromise, settlement, or supervening events.

XVI. Dismissal for failure to prosecute

Courts expect parties, especially plaintiffs, to actively pursue their cases.

If the plaintiff fails to appear, fails to move the case forward, fails to comply with orders, or otherwise allows the case to stagnate without justifiable reason, the court may dismiss for failure to prosecute.

This is a serious consequence of procedural neglect.

Why courts dismiss for failure to prosecute

The judicial system cannot function if cases are filed and then abandoned on the docket indefinitely. Dismissal protects court efficiency and fairness to defendants.

Effect of dismissal for failure to prosecute

This is particularly important: some dismissals for failure to prosecute may operate as an adjudication on the merits unless the court declares otherwise or the rules treat the situation differently.

That means a party who “only neglected procedure” may discover that the case cannot simply be refiled.

This is one of the most dangerous forms of involuntary dismissal.

XVII. Dismissal for noncompliance with court orders or rules

Beyond failure to prosecute in a broad sense, dismissal may result from specific procedural disobedience.

Examples include:

refusal to amend when ordered,
failure to appear at required proceedings,
refusal to submit pretrial briefs,
failure to comply with discovery orders,
violation of procedural directives,
or repeated disregard of judicial instructions.

Courts have authority to control proceedings and sanction disobedience. Dismissal is one of the harshest sanctions and is usually used where noncompliance is serious, repeated, or unjustified.

XVIII. Dismissal after plaintiff’s evidence: the demurrer concept in civil cases

In a civil case, after the plaintiff has completed presentation of evidence, the defendant may in some situations move for dismissal on the ground that, upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.

This is conceptually similar to saying: even after being fully heard, the plaintiff’s evidence is still legally insufficient.

If granted, the case is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove the claim.

This kind of dismissal is highly significant and generally operates as a judgment on the merits, not a mere procedural pause.

XIX. Dismissal by compromise, settlement, or amicable resolution

Not all dismissals are adversarial defeats.

A case may be dismissed because:

the parties settled,
they entered into a compromise agreement,
the claim was paid,
the dispute became amicably resolved,
or a supervening event rendered further litigation unnecessary.

In such situations, the court may dismiss or approve the compromise and terminate the case.

The effect depends on the terms of the compromise and the nature of the court action. A judicial compromise can itself become enforceable as a judgment.

XX. Mootness as a ground for dismissal

A case may be dismissed because it has become moot and academic.

This happens when, due to supervening events, there is no longer a live controversy requiring judicial resolution.

Examples may include:

expiration of a temporary issue,
implementation or cancellation of the disputed act,
death or change of circumstances affecting relief,
or complete satisfaction of the claim.

Courts generally do not decide abstract questions where no practical relief can still be granted, subject to recognized exceptions in public-law cases.

XXI. Dismissal of appeals

Dismissal is not limited to trial courts.

An appeal itself may be dismissed for reasons such as:

late filing,
failure to pay docket or lawful fees,
failure to file the required brief,
defective record or noncompliance with appellate rules,
abandonment of the appeal,
or filing in the wrong mode.

Dismissal of an appeal does not always mean the original case was substantively wrong. It often means the appealing party failed to properly invoke appellate review.

The practical consequence, however, can be the same: the lower court decision becomes final and enforceable.

XXII. Dismissal in criminal cases: a different framework

Criminal dismissal follows different principles because the State prosecutes offenses, the accused enjoys constitutional protections, and the consequences can implicate liberty.

A criminal case may be dismissed for reasons such as:

lack of jurisdiction,
absence of probable cause in appropriate settings,
violation of the right to speedy trial,
failure of the prosecution to proceed,
insufficiency of evidence,
quashing of the information,
extinction of criminal liability,
death of the accused in situations affecting liability,
amnesty, pardon, or other legally recognized causes,
or acquittal-type determinations.

The consequences are often more constitutionally sensitive than in civil cases.

XXIII. Motion to quash in criminal procedure

One of the classic ways to seek dismissal in criminal procedure is through a motion to quash, which attacks the information on recognized grounds.

Common grounds conceptually include:

facts charged do not constitute an offense,
court has no jurisdiction,
officer filing the information lacked authority,
criminal action or liability has been extinguished,
the accused has been previously convicted, acquitted, or the case dismissed in a way implicating double jeopardy,
or the information is otherwise fatally defective.

If the motion is granted, the effect depends on the ground.

Some defects may be cured by filing a new information. Others permanently bar further prosecution.

XXIV. Dismissal and double jeopardy in criminal cases

This is one of the most important doctrines in all of procedure.

If a criminal case is dismissed after jeopardy has attached, and the dismissal is of the kind that constitutionally bars another prosecution for the same offense, the State may not simply refile the same case.

This is why the ground and circumstances of dismissal matter enormously in criminal law.

A dismissal that amounts to an acquittal, or one entered under circumstances triggering double jeopardy, has a finality that is much stronger than an ordinary procedural dismissal.

By contrast, a dismissal before jeopardy attaches, or on a ground allowing correction and refiling, may not bar another case.

XXV. Provisional dismissal in criminal cases

Philippine criminal procedure also recognizes provisional dismissal in appropriate circumstances, usually with consent requirements and effects that depend on whether the case is later revived within the time allowed by the rules.

This kind of dismissal is neither a total acquittal nor a casual postponement. It occupies a special procedural category.

If the prosecution fails to revive the case within the periods allowed under the rules, the dismissal may eventually become permanent in effect.

XXVI. Dismissal for violation of the right to speedy trial or speedy disposition

A criminal case may be dismissed when the accused’s constitutional or statutory right to speedy trial, or broader right to speedy disposition of cases, is violated.

This is not a mere technical defense. It is a constitutional protection against oppressive and unjustified delay.

If the delay is attributable to the State and reaches the level of legal violation, dismissal may follow. Such dismissal can have powerful final consequences because constitutional rights are at stake.

XXVII. Demurrer to evidence in criminal cases

After the prosecution rests, the accused may seek dismissal on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction.

If the court grants the demurrer to evidence, the case is dismissed because the prosecution failed to prove guilt to the extent legally necessary to continue.

This is not a simple procedural reset. It is closely linked to acquittal-type protection and may bar further prosecution because of double jeopardy.

That is why the prosecution and the State cannot casually undo it.

XXVIII. Dismissal in labor cases

In labor cases, dismissal of the case has its own context and should not be confused with dismissal of an employee from employment.

A labor complaint may be dismissed because:

the wrong forum was used,
the complaint lacks factual basis,
the claim has prescribed,
the parties settled,
the complainant failed to prosecute,
required procedures were not observed,
the labor tribunal lacks jurisdiction,
or the complaint has become moot.

Because labor law is often more liberal procedurally than ordinary civil litigation, tribunals may sometimes prefer substantial justice over technical dismissals. But dismissal still occurs where legal grounds justify it.

XXIX. Dismissal in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings

Administrative complaints may also be dismissed for reasons such as:

lack of jurisdiction,
insufficiency in form or substance,
failure to state a cause recognizable under the governing rules,
failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
mootness,
settlement where allowed,
abandonment,
prescription,
or absence of substantial evidence.

The exact standards depend on the agency, statute, and procedural rules involved.

XXX. Dismissal motu proprio by the court

Sometimes the court dismisses a case motu proprio, meaning on its own initiative.

This may happen where the defect is so fundamental that the court need not await a party’s motion, such as:

patent lack of jurisdiction,
obvious prescription shown on the face of the pleading,
absence of required certification in circumstances treated as fatal,
clear failure to comply with mandatory rules,
or other grounds the rules allow the court to recognize on its own.

This shows that dismissal is not always something the defendant must trigger. Courts themselves have procedural gatekeeping duties.

XXXI. The effect of dismissal on counterclaims and cross-claims

Dismissal of the principal complaint does not always automatically dispose of counterclaims or related claims.

A defendant’s counterclaim may:

survive independently if permissive or independently justiciable,
be affected differently depending on whether the dismissal was voluntary or involuntary,
or proceed where the rules and equities allow.

Thus, a plaintiff who dismisses a complaint may discover that the litigation is not truly over because the defendant’s claim remains alive.

XXXII. Dismissal and amendment

Sometimes a case is not dismissed immediately because the defect can be cured by amendment.

Philippine procedure often favors allowing amendment where justice requires, especially when the defect is not incurable and no serious prejudice arises.

But not all defects are amendable.

A court may allow amendment where:

allegations are incomplete,
parties are misnamed,
details are insufficient,
or technical defects are correctable.

A court is more likely to dismiss outright where:

jurisdiction is absent,
prescription clearly bars the claim,
the wrong cause of action is inherently fatal,
or repeated amendment would be futile.

XXXIII. Dismissal and refiling

Whenever a case is dismissed, the next practical question is: can it be filed again?

The answer depends on:

whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice,
whether the claim has prescribed,
whether the dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits,
whether res judicata applies,
whether the ground was curable,
whether refiling would violate a procedural bar,
or whether constitutional protections like double jeopardy now apply.

This is why the phrase “without prejudice” is so important. It preserves, at least in principle, the possibility of another suit. But even then, practical barriers like prescription can destroy that possibility if the plaintiff waits too long.

XXXIV. Dismissal versus acquittal versus denial

These terms should not be confused.

Dismissal

Termination of the case on procedural, jurisdictional, or certain substantive grounds.

Acquittal

In criminal law, a determination that the accused is not criminally liable, or that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Denial

Often refers to denial of a motion or plea, not termination of the whole case.

A criminal dismissal may sometimes function like an acquittal, but not every dismissal is an acquittal. Likewise, denial of a complaint on the merits after full hearing is not merely procedural dismissal.

Precision matters.

XXXV. Remedies against dismissal

A party aggrieved by dismissal may have different remedies depending on the nature of the order.

Possible remedies may include:

appeal,
motion for reconsideration,
petition for certiorari in proper cases,
refiling where dismissal was without prejudice,
or other special remedies under the applicable procedural setting.

The choice depends on whether the dismissal was final or interlocutory, whether it involved grave abuse of discretion, whether appeal is adequate, and whether refiling is still legally possible.

Wrong remedy choices can be fatal.

XXXVI. Final orders and appealability

Not every dismissal is treated the same for appeal purposes.

A dismissal that finally disposes of the case is generally a final order. But whether it is appealable may depend on the specific rule and the nature of the proceeding.

For example:

a dismissal with prejudice often functions as an appealable final order;
a dismissal without prejudice may in some contexts not be appealed in the same way, because the plaintiff may simply refile, though other remedies may sometimes be available.

The procedural posture matters greatly.

XXXVII. Practical consequences of dismissal

Dismissal is not merely a procedural label. It carries serious real-world effects.

A dismissed case may result in:

loss of time and litigation expense,
loss of filing fees,
prescription problems,
final loss of the claim,
execution of the lower court judgment if an appeal is dismissed,
inability to recover damages,
reputational consequences,
or constitutional protection against reprosecution in criminal cases.

In this sense, dismissal can be as decisive as a full-blown trial judgment.

XXXVIII. Common misconceptions

Several misunderstandings frequently arise.

1. “Dismissed means the case was false.”

Not necessarily. A case may be dismissed for procedural reasons without any finding that the underlying claim was false.

2. “Dismissed means the case can always be refiled.”

Not true. Some dismissals permanently bar refiling.

3. “A technical dismissal is minor.”

Not always. Technical dismissals can permanently destroy a case through prescription or prejudice.

4. “If the plaintiff withdraws the case, it is as if nothing happened.”

Not always. Repeated voluntary dismissals and defendant counterclaims can complicate matters.

5. “A criminal dismissal is always appealable by the State.”

No. Double jeopardy can make some dismissals final and unreviewable in substance.

XXXIX. Why dismissal law matters so much

Procedural law often determines whether substantive rights can ever be heard. A meritorious claim filed in the wrong forum may be dismissed. A strong defense not timely raised may be lost. A criminal prosecution with weak evidence may end in dismissal before the defense even presents evidence. A plaintiff who ignores court orders may lose the case without ever reaching the merits.

Dismissal doctrine therefore serves multiple functions:

protecting jurisdictional boundaries,
enforcing procedural discipline,
preventing repetitive litigation,
safeguarding constitutional rights,
preserving judicial resources,
and ensuring fairness to both sides.

It is not merely technical machinery. It is part of the justice system’s structure.

XL. The bottom line

Under Philippine law, dismissal of a case is not a single, simple event. It is a procedural and sometimes substantive termination of a case that may arise from many different causes and may produce radically different legal effects.

The most important distinctions are these:

dismissal with prejudice versus without prejudice
voluntary versus involuntary dismissal
civil versus criminal dismissal
jurisdictional/procedural versus merits-based dismissal
dismissals that allow refiling versus dismissals that permanently bar the action

In civil cases, dismissal may result from defects such as lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a cause of action, failure to comply with conditions precedent, res judicata, prescription, forum shopping, failure to prosecute, or settlement. In criminal cases, dismissal may arise through quashal, insufficiency of evidence, speedy trial violations, provisional dismissal, extinction of liability, or other constitutional and procedural grounds. In appeals and special proceedings, dismissal may result from noncompliance with mandatory appellate or procedural requirements.

So the correct way to understand a dismissal is always to ask:

What kind of case is involved, what ground caused the dismissal, and does the dismissal end the controversy only procedurally—or forever?

That is the legal heart of dismissal of a case under Philippine law.

I can also turn this into a more technical version organized separately into civil, criminal, labor, and administrative dismissals with a comparative chart of effects, remedies, and whether refiling is allowed.