permissive docketfees

8/20/2019 Permissive DocketFees

1/22

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

CALIBRE TRADERS, INC., G.R. No. 161431

MARIO SISON SEBASTIAN,

a! MINDA BLANCO Present:

SEBASTIAN,

Petitioners, CORONA, C. J., Chairperson,

VELASCO, JR.,

LEONARO!E CAS"RO,! #ersus ! EL CAS"$LLO, and

PERE%, JJ.

BA"ER #$ILI##INES, INC., Pro&ul'ate(:

Respondent. October )*, +)- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! -

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, J .%

"his petition for re#ie on certiorari/)0 assails the Jul1 *), ++ ecision/+0 an(

the ece&ber )2, +* Resolution/*0 of the Court of Appeals 3CA4 in CA!5.R. CV No.

67768, that (enie( petitioners action for (a&a'es a'ainst respon(ent 9a1er Philippines

$nc. 39a1erphil4 an( instea( 'rante( the latters counterclai& for P),++,)*.,

representin' unpai( purchases of 9a1erphils pro(ucts.

Factual Antecedents

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn1


2/22

Calibre "ra(ers, $nc. 3Calibre4 as one of 9a1erphils (istributors;(ealers of its

a'ricultural che&icals ithin the pro#inces of Pan'asinan an( "arlac./60 "heir last

(istributorship a'ree&ent as effecti#e fro& June )2


3/22

)). 7 Pro&pt Pa1&ent on P),


4/22

)2


5/22

at P62,*+8.62. Enclose( hereith please fin( our CMF)++7 in the

a&ount ofP*+,

9asa'ran +7 &l. ! +* bottles

7 &l. ! )+ bottles

9a1carb ) &l. ! 86 H9a1throi( ) &l. ! ** H

+7 &l. ! **8 H

5usacarb 7 &l. ! + HRoun(up +7 &l. ! * H

Machete EC 7 &l. ! )+ H ) &l. ! )+ H

"he net #alue of the abo#e &aterials has been co&pute(

at P)+6,62*.+


6/22

9a1erphils Assistant Sales Mana'er Rene 5arcia 35arcia4 'a#e this letter to

Sebastian/))0 on No#e&ber ), an( offere( to 'rant Calibres clai&s @ust so that it &a1

finall1 settle all its unpai( accounts ith 9a1erphil. Sebastian rote 9a1erphil to confir&

5arcias offer./)+0 $n repl1, 9a1erphil specifie( in its No#e&ber +6, )2


7/22


8/22

$n its Anser ith Counterclai&,/)20 9a1erphil (enie( its alle'e( anton

appoint&ent of other (istributors, reasonin' that it coul( not be faulte( for a (ifference in

treat&ent beteen a pa1in' (ealer an( a non!pa1in' one. $t &aintaine( that Calibre file(

the (a&a'e suit to a#oi( pa1in' its o#er(ue accounts. Consi(erin' that those purchase(

on cre(it re&aine( unpai(, 9a1erphil ha( to refuse to further suppl1 Calibre ith its pro(ucts.

9a1erphil also a#erre( that the (ealership a'ree&ent pro#i(es that rebates an(

(iscounts oul( onl1 be 'rante( if the pre#ious purchases ha( been first full1 pai(. $t

(enie( that it faile( to reconcile Calibres accounts since it conferre( ith Calibre, an(

e#en acce(e( to a nu&ber of (e(uctions (e&an(e( b1 Calibre sub@ect to the latters

settle&ent of accounts. 9a1erphil thus pra1e( for the collection of P),++,)*., ith

interest of )6 per annu& accruin' (ail1 an( co&poun(e( &onthl1 fro& the (ate of (efault 3as pro#i(e( in the (ealership a'ree&ent4IP),,. e-e&plar1 (a&a'esI

an(, P+,. attorne1s fees an( costs of suit.

9a1erphil also &o#e( that Mario Sebastian an( his ife Min(a 3Sebastians4 be

i&plea(e( as co!(efen(ants, consi(erin' that the Sebastians boun( the&sel#es as

soli(ar1 (ebtors un(er the (istributorship;(ealership a'ree&ent./+0

Calibre oppose( 9a1erphils &otion to i&plea( the Sebastians an( &o#e( to stri>e

out the counterclai&, reasonin' that the spouses are not parties in its suit a'ainst9a1erphil an( thus are not the proper parties to the counterclai&. $t stresse( that the

issues beteen the (a&a'es suit it file( an( 9a1erphils counterclai& for collection of

&one1 are totall1 unrelate(./+)0

On the other han(, 9a1erphil conten(e( that both causes of action arose fro& the

sa&e contract of (istributorship, an( that the Sebastians inclusion is necessar1 for a full

a(@u(ication of 9a1erphils counterclai& to a#oi( (uplication of suits./++0

$n its October +6, )22 Resolution,

/+*0

the trial court re@ecte( Calibres ar'u&ents an('rante( the &otion to i&plea( the Sebastians as co!(efen(ants in the counterclai&. "he

spouses then file( their anser to 9a1erphils counterclai&,/+60 a(optin' all the alle'ations

an( (efenses of Calibre. "he1 raise( the issue that the counterclai& a'ainst the& is

per&issi#e, an( since 9a1erphil faile( to pa1 the reuire( (oc>et fees, the trial court has

no @uris(iction o#er the counterclai&.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn24


9/22

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On ece&ber 8, )22*, the trial court ren(ere( @u('&ent /+70 fa#orin' Calibre. $t hel( that

Calibre as @ustifie( in ithhol(in' pa1&ent because there as (eliberate

inaction;e&plo1&ent of (ilator1 tactics on the part of 9a1erphil to reconcile accounts&a>in' it liable for (a&a'es for abuse of ri'hts an( unfair co&petition un(er Articles )2,

+, an( +< of the Ci#il Co(e./+80 $t opine( that 9a1erphil unfairl1 fa#ore( other (ealers

an( (eliberatel1 refuse( to suppl1 the plaintiff ith its pro(ucts to (ri#e it out of

business. As for 9a1erphils counterclai&, the court a quoa(@u('e( that asi(e fro& bein'

un&eritorious for lac> of #ali( (e&an(, the counterclai& as per&issi#e in

character. "herefore, it &ust be (is&isse( for 9a1erphils failure to pa1 the reuire(

(oc>et fees. "he (ispositi#e portion of the ecision states:

=EREDORE, @u('&ent is hereb1 ren(ere( in fa#or of plaintiff an( a'ainst(efen(ant 9a1er Philippines, $nc., or(erin' sai( (efen(ant to pa1 to plaintiff

the a&ounts of Pet

an( filin' fees, consi(erin' that the counterclai& is per&issi#e in character,

an( not co&pulsor1. efen(ants counterclai& is li>eise $SM$SSE for

lac> of &erit.

SO ORERE./+0

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

"he CA re#erse( the trial courts factual fin(in's. $n its Jul1 *), ++ ecision, the CA

foun( no reason to aar( Calibre an1thin' as it has no cause of action a'ainst

9a1erphil. "he CA sai(:

e a'ree ith the appellant that nothin' in the e#i(ence su''ests that it(eliberatel1 an( &aliciousl1 ithhel( appro#al of Calibres clai&s. $n(ee(, the

correspon(ences beteen the parties sho that either there as an honest

(ifference in the co&putation of the a&ount, an(;or a #ariance in opinion as to

the #ali(it1 of the clai&s. "here is abun(ant e#i(ence that 9a1er actuall1

e-a&ine( its recor(s so &uch so that throu'h a letter (ate( No#e&ber ),

)2


10/22

representati#es to (iscuss the &atter ith Calibres 5eneral Mana'er Mario

Sebastian. 9a1er e-erte( efforts to arri#e at a co&pro&ise ith Calibre, an(

e-presse( its illin'ness to 'rant se#eral concessions to plaintiff!appellee

3E-hibit N, Recor(, pp. +78!+74

Parentheticall1, 9a1ers offer of co&pro&ise cannot be ta>en as an a(&issionof liabilit1 on its part for the entire clai& of appellee Calibre. $n ci#il cases, an

offer of co&pro&ise is not an a(&ission of an1 liabilit1. "he co&pro&ise

settle&ent of a clai& or cause of action is not an a(&ission that the clai& is

#ali(, but &erel1 a(&its that there is a (ispute, an( that the a&ount is bein'

pai( @ust to bu1 peace.3Ser#icei(e Specialists, $nc. #s. Court of Appeals, 5.R.

No. ))+


11/22

an( that the e#i(ence of 9a1erphil re'ar(in' the a&ount oe( b1 Calibre as

unrebutte(, the CA (ee&e( @ustifie( the aar( of actual (a&a'es. =ence:

=EREDORE, pre&ises consi(ere(, the ecision of the loer court is

hereb1 REVERSE an( SE" AS$E an( a ne one is entere( or(erin' plaintiff!appellee Calibre "ra(ers an(;or Mario Sison Sebastian an( Min(a

9lanco Sebastian to pa1 (efen(ant!appellant the a&ount of One Million "o

=un(re( Se#ent1!"o "housan( One =un(re( "hree Pesos an( Se#en

Centa#os 3P),++,)*.4 ith interest thereon at the rate of )6 per annu&

co&poun(e( fro& ece&ber *), )2


12/22

"he loer courts rulin' a'ainst the latter is pre&ise( on a fin(in' of &alice or ba(

faith, i.e., a fin(in' of an abuse of ri'ht on 9a1erphils part in e-ercisin' ini&ical acts that

pre@u(ice( Calibres business. =oe#er, e a'ree ith the CAs conclusion that there is

no a(euate proof that 9a1erphil as 'uilt1 of abusin' its ri'hts. /50oo( faith is

presu&e( an( that the bur(en of pro#in' ba( faith rests upon a part1 alle'in' the sa&e./*+0 $n ci#il cases, the la reuires that the part1 ho alle'es a fact an( substantiall1

asserts the affir&ati#e of the issue has the bur(en of pro#in' it. /**0 "his is here Calibre

faile(.

As re'ar(s the alle'ations of inaction;refusal to reconcile accounts, accounts

&anipulation b1 ithhol(in' (iscounts;rebates, i&position of penalties, an( refusal to

suppl1 'oo(s, the recor(s re#eal that 9a1erphil ne#er i'nore( the reuest for accounts

reconciliation. 9a1erphil acte( on Calibres letter an( sent its representati#es to &eet ithSebastian. $t rote a letter anserin' point!b1!point h1 so&e (e&an(s for (iscounts

an( rebates ha( to be refuse(. 9a1erphils secon( letter, herein so&e clai&s ere

a((itionall1 'rante(, as on 9a1erphils part an act of concession in its (esire to be pai(

since Calibre re&aine( a(a&ant in not pa1in' its accounts. $f e#er Calibre foun( the

secon( letter to be apparentl1 inconsistent ith the first letter, ba( faith cannot be

i&&e(iatel1 i&pute( to 9a1erphil since the latter is not preclu(e( fro& &a>in' pro&pt

corrections in its co&putations.

e cannot subscribe to the accusation of accounts &anipulation. As the CA ha(foun(, this &atter in#ol#es an honest (ifference in the co&putation of the a&ount, an(;or

a #ariance in opinion as to the #ali(it1 of the clai&s. Moreo#er, 9a1erphil coul( not be

bla&e( for (isalloin' so&e of the clai&e( (iscounts an( rebates. n(er the latest

(ealership a'ree&ent an( the #olu&e rebate a'ree&ent e-ecute(, pa1&ent is a

precon(ition for the (iscounts an( rebates./*60 9a1erphil, to &ini&i?e further losses, as

@ustifie( in stoppin' the suppl1 of its pro(ucts hen its (ealer still ha( outstan(in'

accounts. Lastl1, Calibre (i( not specif1 (urin' the trial the unarrante( penalties

9a1erphil ha( alle'e(l1 i&pose(.

Neither (o e fin( an1 abuse in 9a1erphils e-ercise of appointin' other

(istributors ithin Calibres area. "he fact that the (istributors appointe( ere Calibres

for&er custo&ers or sales&en or their relati#es (oes not pro#e an1 ill intention to (ri#e

Calibre out of business. Notabl1, the (istributorship;(ealership a'ree&ent as on a non!

e-clusi#e basis. 9a1erphil &erel1 accor(e( the sa&e business opportunities to others to



13/22

better the&sel#es. Naturall1, an increase in the nu&ber of (istributors in an area ill

entail correspon(in' (ecline in #olu&e sales of the in(i#i(ual (istributors. E#en then

9a1erphils assistant sales &ana'er for internal a(&inistration Ofelia Castillo, ho na&e(

(urin' the trial the other (istributors 9a1erphil appointe( in Pan'asinan, not onl1

ac>nole('e( that 9a1erphils for&er sales&en ha( resi'ne( to be (ealers, but alsoa(&itte( that co&petition is part of business ris>:

K Bou sai( in Manaoa', this Rosal1n A'ricultural Suppl1 as there as earl1

as )2e those (ealers ho ha#e se#eral 1ears.

K "his Sa&son in r(aneta as also short li#e(

A $t be'an in the area an( operatin' until no.

K oul( 1ou >no hen Sa&son be'an as a (istributor

A 9eteen the perio( e( an( (ealt ith 9a1er che&icals, ith the trainin' the1 'ot, $

suppose the1 'et that e-perience.

K An( this e-perience oul( be in#aluable in their (istributorship

A Valuable.

K Ver1 #aluable

A Ver1 #aluable.


14/22

K An( in fact, 1ou >no of &an1 sales&en of 9a1er Phils ho resi'ne(

A Bes, sir.

K 9ecause the chances of 'ettin' &ore is there if 1ou are an in(epen(ent

(istributorA Bes, sir.

K $n fact, this is true not onl1 in Pan'asinan but all o#er the countr1, Mrs.

Castillo

A Bes, because e ha#e &entione( one in Cotabato, in San Jose, Nue#a Eci@a,

in "u'ue'arao.

K An( fro& the recor(s that 1ou &entione( earlier on, it oul( see& so&e of

the& succee(e( beautifull1 an( so&e close( shop afterar(s

A Bes, sir.

K $t is @ust a &atter of luc> an( 1es, business luc>

A Bes, sir ./*70

$nci(entall1, un(er actual or co&pensator1 (a&a'es, in(e&nification co&prises

not onl1 the #alue of the loss suffere(, but li>eise the profits the obli'ee faile( to obtain./*80 $n its atte&pt to support this clai& for co&pensator1 (a&a'es, Calibre, base( its

co&putation of &ore or less a loss of P< &illion on a )!1ear sales pro@ection. /*0 9ut as

coul( be 'leane( fro& Sebastians testi&on1, there is no soli( e#i(ence upon hich this

sales pro@ection as base(:

K Bou prepare( a pro@ection of 1our total sales for another ten 3)4 1ears fro&

)2


15/22

K hat then as the basis of 1our pro@ection

A "he basis of &1 pro@ection is, as one of the #alue( clients of 9a1er

Philippines hich is a &e&ber of the orl( Club, e are in the brac>et

of ) &illion per 1ear sales.

K So 1ou onl1 ha( capabilit1 to sellA Bes.

K =a#e 1ou e#er sol( before in the ) &illion per 1ear sales

A Bes.

K "hat is h1 $ a& as>in' 1ou, 1ou (i( not at all base 1our assu&ption on

1our prior sales recor( of 9a1er Philippines pro(ucts

A $ cannot possibl1 base it on the past sales. Cost of &one1 is 'oin' up so $

base( it on a brac>et that 9a1er Philippines put us hich is in the )

&illion per 1ear sales that is pro@ecte( for another ) 1ears because e

are the #alue( clients of 9a1er.

K Bou also pro@ecte( 1our profits for the ne-t ) 1ears

A Bes, sir.

K An( 1ou (i( not consi(er the profits fro& the 9a1er business of the prior

1ears in &a>in' 1our pro@ection

A Bes, sir.

K $ assu&e then that in (eter&inin' 1our profits for the pre#ious 1ears 1ou

use( the fi'ures of the su&&ar1 E-hibit O as to 1our sales fro& )2

to )2


16/22

e#i(ence obtainable b1 the in@ure( part1./*20 "he pro@ecte( su& of P) &illion sales

cannot thus be the proper base in co&putin' actual (a&a'es. Calibre co&pute( its lost

inco&e base( onl1 on its capabilit1 to sell aroun( P) Million, not on the actual inco&e

earne( in the past 1ears to properl1 co&pute the a#era'e inco&e;profit.

At an1 rate, since Calibre ha( no cause of action at all a'ainst 9a1erphil, there can

be no basis to aar( it ith (a&a'es.

Bayerphils counterclaim is permissive, but the

trial court should have given it the opportunity

to pay the docet fees since it did not avoid

paying said fees.

A co&pulsor1 counterclai& is an1 clai& for &one1 or other relief, hich a (efen(in'

part1 &a1 ha#e a'ainst an opposin' part1, hich at the ti&e of suit arises out of, or is

necessaril1 connecte( ith, the sa&e transaction or occurrence that is the sub@ect &atter

of plaintiffs co&plaint. $t is co&pulsor1 in the sense that it is ithin the @uris(iction of the

court, (oes not reuire for its a(@u(ication the presence of thir( parties o#er ho& the

court cannot acuire @uris(iction, an( ill be barre( - - - if not set up in the anser to the

co&plaint in the sa&e case. An1 other clai& is per&issi#e./60 /"he0 Court has alrea(1

lai( (on the folloin' tests to (eter&ine hether a counterclai& is co&pulsor1 or not,

to it: 3)4 Are the issues of fact or la raise( b1 the clai& an( the counterclai& lar'el1

the sa&e 3+4 oul( res !udicata bar a subseuent suit on (efen(ants clai&s, absent the

co&pulsor1 counterclai& rule 3*4 ill substantiall1 the sa&e e#i(ence support or refute

plaintiffs clai& as ell as the (efen(ants counterclai& an( 364 $s there an1 lo'ical

relation beteen the clai& an( the counterclai&, such that the con(uct of separate trials

of the respecti#e clai&s of the parties oul( entail a substantial (uplication of effort an(

ti&e b1 the parties an( the court/6)0 "he fourth test is the co&pellin' test of

co&pulsoriness./6+0

9a1erphils suit &a1 in(epen(entl1 procee( in a separate action. Althou'h the ri'hts an(obli'ations of the parties are anchore( on the sa&e contract, the causes of action the1

file( a'ainst each other are (istinct an( (o not in#ol#e the sa&e factual issues. e fin(

no lo'ical relationship beteen the to actions in a a1 that the reco#er1 or (is&issal of

plaintiffs suit ill establish a foun(ation for the others clai&. "he counterclai& for

collection of &one1 is not intertine( ith or contin'ent on Calibres on clai& for

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/161431.htm#_ftn42


17/22

(a&a'es, hich as base( on the principle of abuse of ri'hts. 9oth actions in#ol#e the

presentation of (ifferent pieces of e#i(ence. Calibres suit ha( to present e#i(ence of

&alicious intent, hile 9a1erphils ob@ecti#e as to pro#e nonpa1&ent of purchases. "he

alle'ations hi'hli'htin' ba( faith are (ifferent fro& the transactions constitutin' the

sub@ect &atter of the collection suit. Respon(ents counterclai& as onl1 per&issi#e. =ence, the CA erre( in rulin' that 9a1erphils clai& a'ainst the petitioners

parta>es of a co&pulsor1 counterclai&.

9e that as it &a1, the trial court as incorrect in (is&issin' 9a1erphils

counterclai& for non!pa1&ent of (oc>et fees.

All alon', 9a1erphil has ne#er e#a(e( pa1&ent of the (oc>et fees on the honest

belief that its counterclai& as co&pulsor1. $t has ala1s ar'ue( a'ainst Calibrescontention that its counterclai& as per&issi#e e#er since the latter oppose( 9a1erphils

&otion before the R"C to i&plea( the Sebastian spouses. Lastl1, 9a1erphils belief as

reinforce( b1 Ju('e Clara#alls October +6, )22 Resolution hen she (enie( Calibres

&otion to stri>e out 9a1erphils counterclai&. "hus:

ith respect to the &otion to stri>e out the counterclai&, the Re@oin(er

an( Repl1 of CAL$9RE &entione( to reasons to support it. "hese are: )4

that the counterclai& is not a'ainst the opposin' part1 onl1, an( +4 that the

plaintiffs clai& a'ainst the (efen(ant is totall1 unrelate( to the latters clai&

a'ainst the Sebastian spouses because the1 are not the sa&e.

To re&o'*e t+e (&&ue& ao*emet(oe!, t+e e'emet& o- a ompu'&or/

outer'a(m are t+u& )(*e%

A outer'a(m (& ompu'&or/ a! (& o&(!ere! arre! (- ot &et up 0+ere

t+e -o''o0() (rum&tae& are pre&et% 1 t+at (t ar(&e& out o- t+e, or (&

ee&&ar('/ oete! 0(t+ t+e tra&at(o or ourree t+at (& t+e &u2et

matter o- t+e oppo&() part/& 'a(m, t+at (t !oe& ot reu(re -or (t&

a!2u!(at(o t+e pre&ee o- t+(r! part(e& o- 0+om t+e ourt aot

au(re 2ur(&!(t(o, a! 3 t+at t+e ourt +a& 2ur(&!(t(o to eterta( t+e'a(m. 5a*(er *&. IAC, 171 SCRA 689

"he pro#isions of Section


18/22

a'ainst the opposin' part1 or a co!(efen(ant pro#i(e(, that the court has

@uris(iction to entertain the clai& an( can, if the presence of thir( parties is

essential for its a(@u(ication, acuire @uris(iction of such parties.

"he rules an( @urispru(ence (o not reuire that the parties to the counterclai&

be the ori'inal parties onl1. $n fact, the presence of thir( parties is alloe(, theonl1 pro#ision bein' their capacit1 to be sub@ecte( un(er the courts

@uris(iction. As re'ar(s the nature of the clai&s of the parties, neither is it

reuire( that the1 be of the sa&e nature, onl1 that the1 arise fro& the sa&e

transaction or occurrence./6*0

$t cannot be 'ainsai( that the e&er'in' tren( in the rulin's of this Court is to affor(

e#er1 part1 liti'ant the a&plest opportunit1 for the proper an( @ust (eter&ination of his

cause, free fro& the constraints of technicalities./660 Rules on the pa1&ent of filin' fees

ha#e alrea(1 been rela-e(:

). $t is not si&pl1 the filin' of the co&plaint or appropriate initiator1

plea(in', but the pa1&ent of the prescribe( (oc>et fee, that #ests a trial court

ith @uris(iction o#er the sub@ect!&atter or nature of the action. :+ere t+e

-('() o- t+e ((t(ator/ p'ea!() (& ot aompa(e! / pa/met o- t+e

!o;et -ee, t+e ourt ma/ a''o0 pa/met o- t+e -ee 0(t+( a rea&oa'e

t(me ut ( o a&e e/o! t+e app'(a'e pre&r(pt(*e or re)'emetar/

per(o!.

. T+e &ame ru'e app'(e& to perm(&&(*e outer'a(m&, t+(r! of Court or his (ul1 authori?e( (eput1 to enforce

sai( lien an( assess an( collect the a((itional fee./670



19/22

$t is a settle( (octrine that althou'h the pa1&ent of the prescribe( (oc>et fees is a

@uris(ictional reuire&ent, its non!pa1&ent - - - shoul( not result in the auto&atic

(is&issal of the case pro#i(e( the (oc>et fees are pai( ithin the applicable prescripti#e

perio(./680 "he prescripti#e perio( therein &entione( refers to the perio( ithin hich a

specific action &ust be file(.$t &eans that in e#er1 case, the (oc>et fee &ust be pai( before the lapse of the prescripti#e perio(. Chapter *, "itle V, 9oo> $$$ of the Ci#il Co(e

is the principal la 'o#ernin' prescription of actions./60

$n accor(ance ith the afore&entione( rules on pa1&ent of (oc>et fees, the trial

court upon a (eter&ination that 9a1erphils counterclai& as per&issi#e, shoul( ha#e

instea( or(ere( 9a1erphil to pa1 the reuire( (oc>et fees for the per&issi#e

counterclai&, 'i#in' it reasonable ti&e but in no case be1on( the re'le&entar1 perio(./6et fees up to the ti&e the trial court ren(ere( its ecision on

ece&ber 8, )22*, 9a1erphil coul( still be or(ere( to pa1 the (oc>et fees since no

prescription has 1et set in./620 9esi(es, 9a1erphil shoul( not suffer fro& the (is&issal of

its case (ue to the &ista>e of the trial court.

Consi(erin' the fore'oin' (iscussion, e fin( no nee( to re&an( the case to the

trial court for the resolution of 9a1erphils counterclai&. $n "etromedia #imes

Corporation v. Pastorin,/70 e (iscusse( the rule as to hen @uris(iction b1 estoppel

applies an( hen it (oes not, thus:

Lac> of @uris(iction o#er the sub@ect &atter of the suit is 1et another

&atter. hene#er it appears that the court has no @uris(iction o#er the sub@ect

&atter, the action shall be (is&isse( 3Section +, Rule 2, Rules of Court4. "his

(efense &a1 be interpose( at an1 ti&e, (urin' appeal $Ro%as vs. Rafferty, &'

Phil. ()' 4 or e#en after final @u('&ent 3Cru*cosa vs. Judge Concepcion, et

al., ++ Phil. +- 4. Such is un(erstan(able, as this >in( of @uris(iction is

conferre( b1 la an( not ithin the courts, let alone the parties, to the&sel#es

(eter&ine or con#enientl1 set asi(e. $n People vs. Casiano 3))) Phil. *, 2*!

264, this Court, on the issue of estoppel, hel(: "he operation of the principle of estoppel on the uestion of

@uris(iction see&in'l1 (epen(s upon hether the loer court actuall1 ha(

@uris(iction or not. $f it ha( no @uris(iction, but the case as trie( an( (eci(e(

upon the theor1 that it ha( @uris(iction, the parties are not barre(, on appeal,

fro& assailin' such @uris(iction, for the sa&e &ust e-ist as a &atter of la, an(

&a1 not be conferre( b1 consent of the parties or b1 estoppel 37 C.J.S.,


20/22

et fees b1 #irtue of Ju('e Clara#alls October +6, )22

Resolution. Petitioners also acti#el1 participate( in the a(@u(ication of the counterclai&

hich the trial court a(@u('e to be un&eritorious.

=oe#er, e are &ore incline( to affir& the CAs rulin' anent 9a1erphils

counterclai&. $t hel( thus:

hat re&ains to be (eter&ine( no is hether or not (efen(ant!

appellant is entitle( to its counterclai&. On this score, e note that plaintiff!

appellee ne#er (enie( that it still oes (efen(ant!appellant for purchases it ha(&a(e. 9a1er ha( alrea(1 reco'ni?e( that Calibre as entitle( to a #olu&e

rebate for the 1ears )2 purchases, an( a 7 pro&pt pa1&ent rebate of P8*,)28.8 in #ie of the

application of the #olu&e rebate to Calibres outstan(in' balance, or a total of

P*


21/22

istributorship;ealership A'ree&ent entere( into b1 the parties pro#i(es that

(efault in pa1&ent on an1 account b1 the $S"R$9"OR;EALER hen

an( as the1 fall (ue shall entitle 9ABERP=$L to interests thereon at the then

&a-i&u& laful interest rates hich in no case shall be loer than tel#e per

cent 3)+4 per annu& for accounts full1 secure( b1 a &ort'a'e on realt1 or

fourteen per cent 3)64 per annu& hen otherise unsecure(. 3E-hibit )!D,Recor(, p. *+


22/22

OSE #ORT=GAL #ERE>

/ssociate Justice

permissive docketfees

Documents