Yolanda Villanueva-Ong v. Juan Ponce Enrile

 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.