rule 1-5 digest

7/24/2019 Rule 1-5 digest

1/4

EVANGELINE ALDAY, petitioner, vs. FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent.

Facts:

FGU Insurance Corporation fled a complaint with the RTC o Makati alleging that Alday owed

it !!"#$%&'($# representing unli)uidated cash ad*ances# unremitted costs o premiums andother charges incurred as an insurance agent' Respondent also prayed or e+emplarydamages# attorneys ees# and costs o suit' etitioner fled her answer and ,y way ocounterclaim# asserted her right or the payment o !&"#-./'"%# representing directcommissions# proft commissions and contingent ,onuses and or accumulated premiumreser*es amounting to %&&&&'&&' In addition# petitioner prayed or attorneys ees#litigation e+penses# moral damages and e+emplary damages or the allegedly unoundedaction fled ,y respondent'

Respondent fled a Motion to 0trike 1ut Answer 2ith Compulsory Counterclaim And To3eclare 3eendant In 3eault ,ecause petitioners answer was allegedly fled out o time'4owe*er# the trial court denied the motion' A ew weeks later# respondent fled a motion todismiss petitioners counterclaim# contending that the trial court ne*er ac)uired 5urisdiction

o*er the same ,ecause o the non6payment o docket ees ,y petitioner' In response#petitioner asked the trial court to declare her counterclaim as e+empt rom payment odocket ees since it is compulsory and that respondent ,e declared in deault or ha*ingailed to answer such counterclaim'

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss' The court ound petitioners counterclaim to ,emerely permissi*e and held that petitioners ailure to pay docket ees pre*ented the courtrom ac)uiring 5urisdiction o*er the same' The Court o Appeals sustained the trial court'

Issues:

1. 2hether or not the respondent is estopped rom )uestioning her non6payment o

docket ees ,ecause it did not raise this particular issue when it fled its frst motion'2. 2hether or not the Court o Appeals had 5urisdiction to entertain the appeal o thepetitioner'

3. 2hether or not the counterclaim was permissi*e or compulsory

He!:

1. 7stoppel ,y laches arises rom the negligence or omission to assert a right within areasona,le time# warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it eitherhas a,andoned or declined to assert it' In the case at ,ar# respondent cannot ,econsidered as estopped rom assailing the trial court8s 5urisdiction o*er petitioners

counterclaim since this issue was raised ,y respondent with the trial court itsel the,ody where the action is pending 6 e*en ,eore the presentation o any e*idence ,ythe parties and defnitely# way ,eore any 5udgment could ,e rendered ,y the trialcourt'

2. This o,5ection to the CA8s 5urisdiction is raised or the frst time ,eore this Court'Although the lack o 5urisdiction o a court may ,e raised at any stage o the action# aparty may ,e estopped rom raising such )uestions i he has acti*ely taken part inthe *ery proceedings which he )uestions# ,elatedly o,5ecting to the court8s

5urisdiction in the e*ent that that the 5udgment or order su,se)uently rendered is


2/4

ad*erse to him' In this case# respondent acti*ely took part in the proceedings ,eorethe CA ,y fling its appellees ,rie with the same' Its participation# when takentogether with its ailure to o,5ect to the 5urisdiction during the entire duration o theproceedings ,eore such court# demonstrates a willingness to a,ide ,y the resolutiono the case ,y such tri,unal and accordingly# respondent is now most decidedlyestopped'

3. 91T4' A compulsory counterclaim is one which# ,eing cogni:a,le ,y the regularcourts o 5ustice# arises out o or is connected with the transaction or occurrenceconstituting the su,5ect matter o the opposing parties8 claim and does not re)uireor its ad5udication the presence o third parties o whom the court cannot ac)uire

5urisdiction' InValencia v. Court of Appeals# this Court set the criteria to determinewhether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissi*e#

a' Are the issues of fact and lawraised ,y the claim and counterclaim largely thesame;

,' 2ould res judicata,ar a su,se)uent suit on deendants claim a,sent thecompulsory counterclaim rule;chanro,les*irtuallawli,rary

c' 2ill substantially the same evidencesupport or reute plainti


3/4

c' 2here the trial court ac)uires 5urisdiction o*er a claim ,y the fling o theappropriate pleading and payment o the prescri,ed fling ee ,ut# su,se)uently#the 5udgment awards a claim not specifed in the pleading# or i specifed thesame has ,een let or determination ,y the court# the additional fling eethereor shall constitute a lien on the 5udgment' It shall ,e the responsi,ility o the

Clerk o Court or his duly authori:ed deputy to enorce said lien and assess andcollect the additional ee'chanro,les*irtuallawli,rary

In 0uson *' Court o Appeals# the Court e+plained that although the payment o theprescri,ed docket ees is a 5urisdictional re)uirement# its non6payment does notresult in the automatic dismissal o the case pro*ided the docket ees are paid withinthe applica,le prescripti*e or reglementary period' Coming now to the case at ,ar# ithas not ,een alleged ,y respondent and there is nothing in the records to show thatpetitioner has attempted to e*ade the payment o the proper docket ees or herpermissi*e counterclaim' As a matter o act# ater respondent fled its motion todismiss petitioners counterclaim ,ased on her ailure to pay docket ees# petitionerimmediately fled a motion with the trial court# asking it to declare her counterclaimas compulsory in nature and thereore e+empt rom docket ees and# in addition# to

declare that respondent was in deault or its ailure to answer her counterclaim' Thetrial court should ha*e instead gi*en petitioner a reasona,le time# ,ut in no case,eyond the applica,le prescripti*e or reglementary period# to pay the fling ees orher permissi*e counterclaim'

Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. Vs. Hon. Albert A. Lerma,et al.

Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. Vs. Hon. Albert A. Lerma, et al. ,G.R. No. 143581. January 7, 2008

FACTS: Petitioner KOGIES and respondent PGSMC executed a Contract whereby KOGIES would set up an LPG Cylinder

Manufacturing Plant for respondent. Respondent unilaterally cancelled the contract on the ground that petitioner had altered the

quantity and lowered the quality of the machineries and equipment it delivered. Petitioner opposed informing the latter that PGSMC

could not unilaterally rescind their contract nor dismantle and transfer the machineries and equipment on mere imagined violations

by petitioner. Petitioner then filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against respondent before the RTC. Respondent filed its

Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim asserting that it had the full right to dismantle and transfer the machineries and equipment

because it had paid for them in full as stipulated in the contract. KOGIES filed a motion to dismiss respondents counterclaims

arguing that when PGSMC filed the counterclaims, it should have paid docket fees and filed a certificate of non-forum shopping, and

that its failure to do so was a fatal defect. The RTC dismissed the petitioners motion to dismiss respondents counterclaims as these

counterclaims fell within the requisites of compulsory counterclaims.

ISSUE: WON payment of docket fees and certificate of non-forum shopping were required in the respondents Answer with

counterclaim?

HELD: NO. The counterclaims of PGSMC were incorporated in its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim in accordance with

Section 8 of Rule 11, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the rule that was effective at the time the Answer with Counterclaim

was filed. Sec. 8 on existing counterclaim or cross-claim states, A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party

has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein. As to the failure to submit a certificate of forum shopping, PGSMCs
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/jan2008/143581.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/jan2008/143581.htm


4/4

Answer is not an initiatory pleading which requires a certification against forum shopping under Sec. 524 of Rule 7, 1997 Revised

Rules of Civil Procedure. It is a responsive pleading, hence, the courts a quo did not commit reversible error in denying KOGIES

motion to dismiss PGSMCs compulsory counterclaims. At the time PGSMC filed its Answer incorporating its counterclaims against

KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fees for said counterclaims being compulsory in nature. We stress, however, that effective

August 16, 2004 under Sec. 7, Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in

compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims.

rule 1-5 digest

Documents