Yolanda Villanueva-Ong v. Juan Ponce Enrile,
G.R. No. 212904,
November 22, 2017
DOCTRINE:
A counterclaim purely for damages and attorneys fees by reason of the unfounded suit filed
by the respondent, has long been settled as falling under the classification of compulsory
counterclaim and it must be pleaded in the same action, otherwise, it is barred.
FACTS :
Juan Ponce Enrile (respondent) filed a civil Complaint for damages against Yolanda
Villanueva-Ong (petitioner) for libel before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City. The
complaint filed by respondent for damages arose from the alleged malicious publication
written by petitioner. Hence central to the resolution of the case is petitioner's malice, or
specifically that the libelous statement must be shown to have been written or published with
the knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of whether they are false or not.
Meanwhile, petitioner's counterclaim presupposes bad faith or malice on the part of
respondent in instituting the complaint for damages. It was alleged that the respondent's
complaint was filed merely to harass or humiliate her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Counterclaim for damages needs to comply with the requirements of
Compulsory pleadings?
HELD:
Yes, A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of
justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim
must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof,
except that in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, necessarily connected with
the subject matter of the opposing party's claim or even where there is such a connection,
the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or it requires for adjudication the presence
of third persons over whom the court acquire jurisdiction. A compulsory counterclaim is
barred if not set up in the same action.A counterclaim is permtsstve if it does not arise out of
or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is
essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case."
Determination of the nature of counterclaim is relevant for purposes of compliance to the
requirements of initiatory pleadings. In order for the court to acquire jurisdiction, permissive
counterclaims require payment of docket fees, while compulsory counterclaims do not. In the
case Lafarge Cement Phil. Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp. citing Tiu Po, et al. v. Hon.
Bautista, et al., this Court ruled that counterclaims seeking moral, actual and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees against the respondent on account of their malicious and
unfounded complaint was compulsory.
In this case, the court found that petitioner's claims are compulsory, and hence should be
resolved along with the civil complaint filed by respondent, without the necessity of
complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. Indeed, a perfunctory reading of
respondent's allegations in support of her counterclaims refers to incidental facts or issues
related to her counterclaim against petitioner. She alleges that respondent unduly singled
her out, and is actually violating her legal and constitutional rights.
However, stripped of the aforesaid niceties, it is at once apparent that petitioner essentially
argues that respondent's suit is unfounded and is merely instituted to harass and vex her. A
counterclaim purely for damages and attorneys fees by reason of the unfounded suit filed by
the respondent, has long been settled as falling under the classification of compulsory
counterclaim and it must be pleaded in the same action, otherwise, it is barred. Furthermore,
"The counterclaim is so intertwined with the main case that it is incapable of proceeding
independently." We find that the evidence supporting respondent's cause that malice
attended in the publication of the article would necessarily negate petitioner's counterclaim
for damages premised on the malicious and baseless suit filed by respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment