-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
1/22
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. ELENA LIM et al.
[ G.R. No. 158138 A!"#l 1$% $&&5 '
FACTS(
Elena Lim, Ramon Calderon and Tri-Oro International Trading
& Manufacturing
Corporation obtained a loan from petitioner and executed a
continuing surety
agreement in faor of t!e ban" for all loans, credits, etc#, t!at
t!ey $ere extended or
maybe extended to in t!e future#
% romissory 'ote $as executed by respondents re(uesting t!e ban"
for a
rene$al of t!e loan amounting to ) million# T!ere $as an express
stipulation t!at t!e
enue for any legal action t!at may arise out of said promissory
note s!all be in Ma"ati,
to t!e exclusion of all ot!er courts#
*pon maturity, t!e respondents failed to pay t!e obligation
$!ic! prompted t!e+an" to foreclose t!e real estate mortgage alued
at ,.,/ leaing a deficiency of
0,0,123#1)#
% complaint for collection of a deficiency $as filed in t!e RTC
of Manila#
Respondents moed to dismiss t!e complaint on t!e ground of
improper enue,
ino"ing t!e stipulation contained in t!e promissory note $it!
respect to t!e
restrictie4exclusie enue#
ISSUE(
5!et!er t!e action against t!e sureties is coered by t!e
restriction on enue
stipulated in t!e romissory 'ote#
RULING(
No.
6ince t!e cases pertaining to bot! causes of action are
restricted to Ma"ati City
as t!e proper enue, petitioner cannot rely on 6ection 7 of Rule
1 of t!e Rules of Court#
% stipulation as to enue does not preclude t!e filing of t!e
action in ot!er places,unless (ualifying or restrictie $ords are
used in t!e agreement#
In t!e instant case, t!e stipulation on t!e exclusiity of t!e
enue as stated in t!e
' is not at issue# 5!at petitioner claims is t!at t!ere $as no
restriction on t!e enue,
because none $as stipulated in t!e 6% on $!ic! petitioner !ad
allegedly based its
suit# %ccordingly, t!e action on t!e 6% may be filed in Manila,
petitioner8s place of
residence#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
2/22
SPOUSES HERMES a)* ARCELI OCHOA v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 1+$8,, Ma"- $3% $&11
FACTS(
T!e mortgaged real property of etitioners 6pouses 9ermes and
%rceli Oc!oa
$as located in ara:a(ue City oer $!ic! t!e C!ina +an"ing
Corporation $as granted
a special po$er to foreclose extra-;udicially#
etitioners insist t!at t!e stipulated exclusie enue of Ma"ati
City is binding only
on petitioners< complaint for %nnulment of =oreclosure, 6ale,
and >amages filed before
t!e Regional Trial Court of ara:a(ue City, but not on respondent
ban"amages#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
3/22
FRANCISCO TANTUICO% /R. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ET
AL.
G.R. No. 8+110 e-e2e" $%1++1
FACTS(
% ciil case for reconeyance, reersion, accounting, restitution
and damages
$as instituted by t!e Republic of t!e !ilippines, represented by
t!e C@@, and
assisted by t!e Office of t!e 6olicitor @eneral $it! t!e
6andiganbayan against +en;amin
RomualdeA, =erdinand E# Marcos and Imelda R# Marcos#
=rancisco 6# Tantuico, Br# $as included as defendant in t!e ciil
case on t!e
t!eory t!at !e allo$ed !imself to be used as instrument in
accumulating ill-gotten
$ealt! by t!e Marcoses#
etitioner argues t!at t!e allegations pertaining to !im state
only conclusions of
fact and la$, inferences of facts from facts not pleaded and
mere presumptions, notultimate facts as re(uired by t!e Rules of
Court#
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not etitioner is correct t!at t!e allegations are not
ultimate facts as
re(uired by t!e Rules of Court#
RULING(
4e.
5!ere t!e complaint states ultimate facts t!at constitute t!e
t!ree )D essential
elements of a cause of action, namely D t!e legal rig!t of t!e
plaintiff, 1D t!e
correlatie obligation of t!e defendant, and )D t!e act or
omission of t!e defendant in
iolation of said legal rig!t, t!e complaint states a cause of
action, ot!er$ise, t!e
complaint must succumb to a motion to dismiss on t!at ground of
failure to state a
cause of action#
T!e complaint does not contain any allegation as to !o$
petitioner became, or
$!y !e is perceied to be, a dummy, nominee or agent# +esides,
t!ere is no aerment
in t!e complaint !o$ petitioner allo$ed !imself to be used as
instrument in t!e
accumulation of ill-gotten $ealt!, $!at t!e concessions, orders
and4or policies
pre;udicial to plaintiff are, $!y t!ey are pre;udicial, and $!at
petitioner !ad to do $it! t!e
granting, issuance, and or formulation of suc! concessions,
orders, and4or policies#
T!e allegations in t!e complaint pertaining to petitioner are,
t!erefore, deficient in
t!at t!ey merely articulate conclusions of la$ and presumptions
unsupported by factual
premises#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
4/22
FAR EAST MARBLE 6PHILS.7 INC.% ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS a)*
BANK OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANS
G.R. No. +0&+3 A9t 1&% 1++3
FACTS(
On its complaint, +I alleged t!at on arious dates and for
aluable
consideration, it extended to =ar East seeral loans, eidenced by
promissory notes,
and credit facilities in t!e form of trust receipts and t!at
despite repeated re(uests and
demands for payment t!ereof, =ar East !ad failed and refused to
pay# T!us, +I filed a
complaint for foreclosure of c!attel mortgage $it! replein
against =ar East Marble
!ils#D, Inc#, Ramon Tabuena and LuisTabuena, Br#
In its ans$er =ar East admitted t!e genuineness and due
execution of t!e
promissory notes but denied t!at repeated demands for payment
$ere made by +I on
it# =ar East t!en raised t!e affirmatie defense of prescription
and lac" of cause of
action, arguing t!at since t!e promissory notes matured in 32/
$!ile +I filed its action
to foreclose t!e c!attel mortgage only in 3.2 or more t!an years
from t!e time its
cause of action accruedD, and t!ere being no demand for payment
$!ic! $ould interrupt
t!e period of prescription for instituting said action, +I
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
5/22
SPOUSES MARCELO AN ANITA ARENAS v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.
G.R. No. 1$::0& Nove2e" $3% $&&&
FACTS(
% erbal contract of lease $as entered into bet$een Rosalina
Ro;as and Marcelo
%renas oer a stall in a building o$ned by Ro;as# %renas used t!e
leased premises as
an optical clinic#
Ro;as $anted to demolis! and reconstruct t!e building and
terminate !er lease
contract $it! %renas# 6o, s!e sent a notice of termination and a
demand to acate t!e
premises but petitioners refused to acate#
6!e instituted in t!e MTC Ciil Case /7. for H *nla$ful
>etainer and >amages
$it! t!e follo$ing prayers first, t!at t!e petitioner be ordered
to acate t!e premises in
(uestionF second, t!at respondent be allo$ed to cause t!e
demolition, reconstructionand renoation of t!e premisesF and t!ird,
t!at petitioner be ordered to indemnify
respondent damages in t!e form of litigation expenses and
attorney8s fees#
T!e MTC ruled in faor of Ro;as# %renas appealed to t!e RTC but
$as denied#
Ciil Case /.3 $as instituted by %renas before t!ey could receie
a copy of
t!e decision in Ciil Case 'o# /7.# T!ey filed $it! t!e RTC an
action for H>amages,
Certiorari $it! a 5rit of reliminary In;unction and4or
Restraining Order against Ro;as#
T!e RTC issued a temporary restraining order en;oining t!e MTC
from !earing
Ciil Case 'o# /7.#
Respondents moed to dismiss t!e case, ino"ing t!e rule against
Hmultiplicity of
suits, but t!e trial court denied it for lac" of merit#
Respondents filed $it! t!e trial court t!eir ans$er to t!e
complaint $it!
counterclaim, reiterating t!eir motion to dismiss $it! an
alternatie motion to suspend
t!e proceedings for t!e reason t!at t!e pending appeal raises a
pre;udicial (uestion but
t!e trial court issued a resolution stating t!at it !ad
;urisdiction to !ear, try and decide
Ciil Case 'o# /.3#
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not t!e causes of action complained of in t!e RTC
$ere in t!e nature
of compulsory counterclaims t!at must be pleaded in Ciil Case
'o# /7. of t!e MTC#
RULING(
No.
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
6/22
T!e follo$ing are t!e tests by $!ic! t!e compulsory nature of a
counterclaim can
be determined
D %re t!e issues of fact and la$ raised by t!e claim and
counterclaim largely t!e
sameJ
1D 5ould res ;udicata bar a subse(uent suit on defendant8s claim
absent t!e
compulsory counterclaim ruleJ
)D 5ill substantially t!e same eidence support or refute
plaintiff8s claim as $ell as
defendant8s counterclaimJ
0D Is t!ere any logical relation bet$een t!e claim and
counterclaimJ
5e do not agree $it! t!e Court of %ppeals t!at t!e claims in
Ciil Case 'o#
/.3 may be pleaded as compulsory counterclaims in Ciil Case 'o#
/7.#
=irst# In Ciil Case 'o# /.3, t!e damages prayed for arose not
from contract
but from (uasi-delict# T!ey constitute separate and distinct
causes of action#
6econd# In de Leon # Court of %ppeals, $e !eld t!at HK5!ere t!e
issues of t!e
case extend beyond t!ose commonly inoled in unla$ful detainer
suits, t!e case is
conerted from a mere detainer suit to one incapable of pecuniary
estimation8 t!ereby
placing it under t!e exclusie ;urisdiction of t!e regional trial
courts# ?erily, since t!e
municipal trial court could not !ae ta"en cogniAance of t!e
claims in Ciil Case 'o#
/.3, t!en suc! claims could not be considered as compulsory
counterclaims in Ciil
Case 'o# /7.#
T!ird# T!e acts complained of $ere committed after t!e complaint
and t!e
ans$er $ere filed#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
7/22
CARLO TAN v. KAAKBA4 FINANCE CORPORATION% ENNIS LA;ARO AN
ROLAN NO4NA4
G.R. No. 10:5+5 /)e $&% $&&3
FACTS(
Naa"bay =inance Corporation as represented by its president
>ennis LaAaro
extended a loan of four million pesos !p 0, ,#D to Carlo Tan
$it! a real estate
mortgage as a security# %ccording to Tan, it $as stated t!at t!e
interest for t!e loan is
1 per annum as opposed by respondents, claiming t!at it $as )#7
mont!ly#
Tan failed to pay !is obligation but an extension of time $as
granted to !im# It
$as agreed t!at Tan and Naa"bay $ould sign, execute, and
ac"no$ledge a >eed of
6ale *nder acto de Retro so Tan $as made to sign a document# Tan
learned of t!e
existence of t!e >eed of 6ale under acto de Retro in faor of
LaAaro $!ic! appeared
t!at !e and !is $ife executed before a notary public, %tty#
Roldan 'oynay but in trut!,
no suc! document $as executed by !im#
Tan filed a complaint in t!e RTC of Calamba, Laguna praying t!at
!is obligation
to Naa"bay =inance Corporation in t!e amount of 0,,# be sub;ect
to interest
of only 1 per annumF t!at t!e promissory notes attac!ed to !is
Real Estate Mortgage
be declared null and oidF t!at t!e >eed of 6ale *nder acto de
Retro be declared
unenforceableF and t!at respondents pay moral and exemplary
damages in t!e amount
of 1,# and 7,#, respectiely, as $ell as attorney8s fees#
Respondents filed t!eir Consolidated %ns$er 5it! Compulsory
Counterclaim%nd Opposition To Temporary Restraining Order TROD and
reliminary In;unction#8
>uring t!e !earing of petitioner8s application for t!e
issuance of a TRO, t!e
parties agreed in open court t!at petitioner $ould $it!dra$ !is
application for a TRO,
$!ile respondents in turn $ould !old in abeyance t!e
registration of t!e >eed of 6ale
*nder acto de Retro until t!e case $as terminated# T!e trial
court issued an order to
t!at effect#
Later, t!e la$ firm of Ortega, >el Castillo, +acorro, Odulio,
Calma, and Carbonell
entered its appearance as counsel for respondents# T!roug! t!e
ne$ counsel,
respondents filed t!eir %ns$er $it! Counterclaim, praying t!at
petitioner pay t!em four
million pesos 0,,#D representing t!e principal amount of t!e
loan, nine million
t!ree !undred t!irty t!ree t!ousand seen !undred fifty pesos
3,))),27#D
representing t!e compounded mont!ly interest and annual penalty
interest8, t$o
!undred fifty t!ousand pesos 17,#D as litigation expenses, and
fie !undred
t!ousand pesos 7,#D as attorney8s fees#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
8/22
In addition, respondents filed a Motion for %dmission of
Counterclaim 5it!out
ayment of =ees, on t!e ground t!at t!eir counterclaim is
compulsory in nature, !ence
it may be admitted $it!out payment of fees#
T!e trial court granted respondents8 motion for admission of
counterclaim $it!out
payment of fees# Tan opposed t!e motion and claims t!at t!e
ans$er $it! counterclaimis permissie in nature# T!us, t!e correct
filing fees must be paid by respondents#
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not t!e counterclaim of respondents is compulsory in
nature, t!us
can be admitted $it!out payment of doc"et fees#
RULING(
4e.
etitioner8s complaint $as for declaration of nullity, inalidity
or annulment of t!e
promissory notes purportedly attac!ed to t!e Real Estate
Mortgage and t!e usurious
and oid interest rates appearing t!erein and t!e >eed of 6ale
*nder acto >e Retro#
Respondents8 counterclaim $as for t!e payment of t!e principal
amount of t!e loan,
compounded mont!ly interest and annual penalty interest arising
out of t!e non-
payment of t!e principal loan, litigation expenses and
attorney8s fees# T!ere is no
dispute as to t!e principal obligation of 0,,, but t!ere is a
dispute as to t!e rate
and amount of interest# etitioner insists t!at t!e amount of
interest is only 1 yearly
until fully paid, $!ile respondents insist on )#7 mont!ly# %lso,
respondents allege t!at
petitioner o$es t!em 3,))),27# representing t!e compounded
mont!ly interest andannual penalty, $!ic! is disputed by
petitioner# etitioner furt!er see"s t!e nullification
of t!e >eed of 6ale *nder acto de Retro for being falsified,
$!ile respondents aer t!e
deed is alid# It t!us appears t!at t!e eidence re(uired to proe
petitioner8s claims is
similar or identical to t!at needed to establis! respondents8
demands for t!e payment of
unpaid loan from petitioner suc! as amount of interest
rates#
Clearly, t!is is t!e situation contemplated under t!e
Hcompelling test of
compulsoriness# T!e counterclaims of respondents !erein are
obiously compulsory,
not permissie# %s aptly !eld by t!e Court of %ppeals, t!e issues
of fact and la$ raised
by bot! t!e claim and counterclaim are largely t!e same, $it! a
logical relation,considering t!at t!e t$o claims arose out of t!e
same circumstances re(uiring
substantially t!e same eidence# %ny decision t!e trial court
$ill ma"e in faor of
petitioner $ill necessarily impinge on t!e claim of respondents,
and ice ersa#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
9/22
MANUEL BUNGCA4AO% SR.% REPRESENTE IN THIS CASE B4 HIS
ATTORNE4
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
10/22
%s a counterclaim, respondent prayed t!at petitioner be re(uired
to return t!e
amount of 0, from respondent, to acate t!e portion of t!e
respondent
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
11/22
CALIBRE TRAER>S INC.% MARIO SISON SEBASTIAN% a)* MINA
BLANCO
SEBASTIAN v. BA4ER PHILIPPINES INC.
G.R. No. 1:1031 O-toe" 13% $&1&
FACTS(
Calibre TraCalibre Traders, Inc# CalibreD $as one of +ayerp!il8s
distributors4dealers of
its agricultural c!emicals# T!e parties !ad a disagreement as
t!e entitlement and
computations of t!e discounts of Calibre# Calibre, alt!oug!
a$are of t!e deadline to pay its
debts $it! +ayerp!il, neert!eless $it!!eld payment to compel
+ayerp!il to reconcile its
accounts#
Calibre filed a suit for damages# It accused +ayerp!il of
maliciously breac!ing t!e
distributors!ip agreement by manipulating Calibre8s accounts,
$it!!olding discounts and
rebates due it, c!arging un$arranted penalties, refusing to
supply goods, and faoring t!e ne$
distributors4dealers to drie it out of business#
In its %ns$er $it! Counterclaim, +ayerp!il denied its alleged
$anton appointment of
ot!er distributors, reasoning t!at it could not be faulted for a
difference in treatment bet$een a
paying dealer and a non-paying one# It maintained t!at Calibre
filed t!e damage suit to aoid
paying its oerdue accounts# Considering t!at t!ose purc!ased on
credit remained unpaid,
+ayerp!il !ad to refuse to furt!er supply Calibre $it! its
products#
+ayerp!il also moed t!at Mario 6ebastian and !is $ife Minda
6ebastiansD be
impleaded as co-defendants, considering t!at t!e 6ebastians
bound t!emseles as solidary
debtors under t!e distributors!ip4dealers!ip agreement#
Calibre opposed +ayerp!il8s motion to implead t!e 6ebastians and
moed to stri"e out
t!e counterclaim, reasoning t!at t!e spouses are not parties in
its suit against +ayerp!il and
t!us are not t!e proper parties to t!e counterclaim# It stressed
t!at t!e issues bet$een t!e
damages suit it filed and +ayerp!il8s counterclaim for
collection of money are totally unrelated#
On t!e ot!er !and, +ayerp!il contended t!at bot! causes of
action arose from t!e
same contract of distributors!ip, and t!at t!e 6ebastians8
inclusion is necessary for a full
ad;udication of +ayerp!il8s counterclaim to aoid duplication of
suits#
T!e trial court re;ected Calibre8s arguments and granted t!e
motion to implead t!e6ebastians as co-defendants in t!e
counterclaim# T!e spouses t!en filed t!eir ans$er to
+ayerp!il8s counterclaim, adopting all t!e allegations and
defenses of Calibre# T!ey raised t!e
issue t!at t!e counterclaim against t!em is permissie, and since
+ayerp!il failed to pay t!e
re(uired doc"et fees, t!e trial court !as no ;urisdiction oer
t!e counterclaim#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
12/22
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not +ayerp!il8s claim against t!e petitioners
parta"es of a compulsory
counterclaim to ;ustify t!e non-payment of doc"et fees#
RULING(
No.
H% compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or ot!er
relief, $!ic! a defending
party may !ae against an opposing party, $!ic! at t!e time of
suit arises out of, or is
necessarily connected $it!, t!e same transaction or occurrence
t!at is t!e sub;ect matter of
plaintiff8s complaint# It is compulsory in t!e sense t!at it is
$it!in t!e ;urisdiction of t!e court,
does not re(uire for its ad;udication t!e presence of t!ird
parties oer $!om t!e court cannot
ac(uire ;urisdiction, and $ill be barred x x x if not set up in
t!e ans$er to t!e complaint in t!e
same case# %ny ot!er claim is permissie#
+ayerp!il8s suit may independently proceed in a separate action#
%lt!oug! t!e rig!ts
and obligations of t!e parties are anc!ored on t!e same
contract, t!e causes of action t!ey
filed against eac! ot!er are distinct and do not inole t!e same
factual issues# 5e find no
logical relations!ip bet$een t!e t$o actions in a $ay t!at t!e
recoery or dismissal of plaintiff8s
suit $ill establis! a foundation for t!e ot!er8s claim# T!e
counterclaim for collection of money is
not intert$ined $it! or contingent on Calibre8s o$n claim for
damages, $!ic! $as based on t!e
principle of abuse of rig!ts# +ot! actions inole t!e
presentation of different pieces of
eidence# Calibre8s suit !ad to present eidence of malicious
intent, $!ile +ayerp!il8s ob;ectie
$as to proe non-payment of purc!ases# T!e allegations
!ig!lig!ting bad fait! are different
from t!e transactions constituting t!e sub;ect matter of t!e
collection suit# Respondent8s
counterclaim $as only permissie# 9ence, t!e C% erred in ruling
t!at +ayerp!il8s claim against
t!e petitioners parta"es of a compulsory counterclaim#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
13/22
G.R. No. L
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
14/22
$it! t!e contract of saleF t!at said contract, basis of Ciil
Case 'o# 01/.0, is also t!e
basis of '%M%RCOER%TIO' alone, being
a compulsory counterclaim against t!e latter, in t!at it arose
out of or is necessarily
connected $it! t!e transaction or occurrence t!at is t!e
sub;ect-matter of t!e action of
t!e =E>ER%TIO' in Ciil Case 'o# 01/.0 against t!e '%M%RCO and
t!erefore it must
!ae been set up in said Ciil Case 'o# 01/.0 in t!e manner
prescribed by section 0,
Rule of t!e Rules of Court, and $it!in t!e t!e date of filing in
Ciil Case 'o# 01/.0,
of t!e ans$er of '%M%RCO and t!e date of t!e decision in t!at
caseF and t!at t!e
failure of '%M%RCO to set up, in said Ciil Case 'o# 01/.0, suc!
a counterclaim,precludes '%M%RCO from raising it as an independent
action, pursuant to 6ection / of
Rule of t!e Rules of Court#
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not t!is action of '%M%RCO for t!e collection of t!e
payment of t!e
merc!andise deliered to, but not yet paid by, t!e =E>ER%TIO',
is already barred as a
conse(uence of t!e failure of '%M%RCO to set it up as a
counterclaim in t!e preious
case, Ciil Case 'o# 01/.0D#
RULING(
No.
T!e complaint of t!e =E>ER%TIO' against t!e '%M%RCO in Ciil
Case 'o#
01/.0 $as predicated on t!e refusal of t!e latter to perform its
obligation under t!e
Contract of 6ale# T!e refusal of t!e '%M%RCO to perform its
obligation under t!e
Contract of 6ale is t!e act or t!e eent, t!e circumstance or
default, $!ic! constitutes
t!e transaction or t!e occurrence#
T!e =E>ER%TIO' contends t!at '%M%RCOER%TIO' in Ciil Case 'o#
01/.0
and t!e cause of action of t!e '%M%RCO in t!is case are based on
t!e same Contract
of 6ale#
+ut it $ill be noted t!at one of t!e re(uisites for t!e
application of t!e rule on
compulsory counterclaim is t!at t!e counterclaim s!ould at least
be connected $it! or
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
15/22
must arise out of t!e transaction or occurrence $!ic! gae rise
to t!e opposing partyER%TIO' in Ciil Case 'o# 01/.0, based on t!e
refusal of t!e '%M%RCO to
delier t!e ot!er goods, !ad not!ing to do $it! t!e latterER%TIO'
and t!e '%M%RCO, t!e refusal of t!e latter to delier t!e ot!er
goods
$as not due to t!e failure of t!e =E>ER%TIO' to pay for t!e
goods deliered, but rat!er
to t!e fact t!at it belieed, as alleged in its ans$er in Ciil
Case 'o# 01/.0, t!at t!e
Contract of 6ale $as not alidly entered into by it# 6uc! being
t!e case, t!e failure of t!e
=E>ER%TIO' to pay for t!e goods deliered could not !ae been
properly raised by
t!e '%M%RCO as a defense or pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim
in Ciil Case 'o#
01/.0# 9o$eer, !ad t!e '%M%RCO alleged its present claim in Ciil
Case 'o# 01/.0,
t!e Court $ould !ae permitted it# % permissie counterclaim is
one $!ic! does not
arise out of, or is not necessarily connected $it!, t!e
transaction or occurrence t!at is
t!e sub;ect-matter of t!e opposing partyER%TIO' in Ciil Case 'o#
01/.0 is suc!
t!at t!e claim of t!e '%M%RCO in t!is case could not properly be
pleaded as a
compulsory counter-claim in t!at case, t!e '%M%RCO is not
precluded from bringing
t!is present action# 6ection /, Rule , Rules of Court, is not
applicable#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
16/22
FLORENTINO NA=ARRO a)* BEA TRI; =INO4A v. HON. ELO4 BELLO% /*9e
o@
te Co"t o@ F#"t I)ta)-e o@ Pa)9a#)a)% /UAN CABUANG%
FLORENTINA
BAUTISTA% FLORENTIO GALICIA a)* CONSOLACION BAUTISTA
G.R. No. L
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
17/22
pleaded in t!e ans$er# To ans$er suc! counterclaim $ould re(uire
plaintiffs to replead
t!e same facts already alleged in t!eir complaint#
ALE/ANRO AGASEN a)* FORTUNA CALONGEamages#
In t!eir %ns$er, petitioners asserted t!at t!e sub;ect land used
to form part of Lot
'o# 131, $!ic! is a 01,)21 s(uare meter parcel of land o$ned in
common by t!e fie
7D +ilog siblings, etra +ilog being one of t!em# etitioners
claimed t!at t!ey became
t!e o$ners of t!e portion of t!e sub;ect land $!ic! belonged to
priate respondent as
!er s!are t!erein, by irtue of D t!e sale in t!eir faor of ,2.7
s(uare meters t!ereof
by Leonora Calonge, sister of =ortunata Calonge-%gasen, and 1D
t!e sale in t!eir faor
by priate respondent of t!e remaining /,22#7 s(uare meters by
irtue of a notariAed
artition $it! 6ale#
+y $ay of counterclaim, petitioners c!arged priate respondent
$it! !aing
fraudulently caused title to t!e sub;ect land to be issued in
!er name#
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not t!e t$o 1D documents relied upon by petitioners
as basis for t!eir
claim of o$ners!ip are alid#
RULING(
No.
It is not denied t!at t!e t$o sub;ect documents are notariAed
documents and, as
suc!, are considered public documents $!ic! en;oy t!e
presumption of alidity as to
aut!enticity and due execution#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
18/22
T!e sub;ect documents $ere also attac!ed by petitioners to t!eir
%ns$er $!ere
t!ey $ere alleged as part of t!e counterclaim#
%s suc!, priate respondent s!ould !ae specifically denied under
oat! t!eir
genuineness and due execution# %fter all, a counterclaim is
considered a complaint,
only t!is time, it is t!e original defendant $!o becomes t!e
plaintiff# It stands on t!esame footing and is to be tested by t!e
same rules as if it $ere an independent
action# 9aing failed to specifically deny under oat! t!e
genuineness and due execution
of t!e said documents, priate respondent is deemed to !ae
admitted t!e same#
FIRESTONE TIRE AN RUBBER COMPAN4 OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
FERNANO
TEMPONGKO a)* ANTONIO LUNA
G.R. No. L
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
19/22
6EC# 1# T!ird-party complaint# Q % t!ird-party complaint is a
claim t!at a
defending party may, $it! leae of court, file against a person
not a party to t!e action,
called t!e t!ird-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any ot!er
relief, in respect of !is opponent
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
20/22
ampanga and defendant $as not yet paid of its serices t!at
resulted to t!e non-
payment of rentals on t!e leased e(uipment#
MEC opposed t!e motion of %C>C to file a t!ird-party
complaint against +ect!el
on t!e ground t!at t!e defendant !ad already admitted its
principal obligation to MEC
and t!e transaction bet$een it and %C>C, on t!e one !and, and
bet$een %C>C and+ect!el, on t!e ot!er, $ere independent
transactions#
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not t!e t!ird-party complaint filed by %C>C
against +ect!el is proper#
RULING(
No.
In t!is case, t!e claims of t!e respondent against t!e
petitioner arose out of t!e
contracts of lease and saleF suc! transactions are different and
separate from t!ose
bet$een +ect!el and t!e petitioner as t!ird-party plaintiff for
t!e construction of t!e
latter8s pro;ect in Mauban, PueAon, $!ere t!e e(uipment leased
from t!e respondent
$as used by t!e petitioner# T!e controersy bet$een t!e
respondent and t!e petitioner,
on one !and, and t!at bet$een t!e petitioner and +ect!el, on t!e
ot!er, are t!us entirely
distinct from eac! ot!er# T!ere is no s!o$ing in t!e proposed
t!ird-party complaint t!at
t!e respondent "ne$ or approed t!e use of t!e leased e(uipment
by t!e petitioner for
t!e said pro;ect in PueAon# +ect!el cannot ino"e any defense t!e
petitioner !ad or
may !ae against t!e claims of t!e respondent in its complaint,
because t!e petitioner
admitted its liabilities to t!e respondent# T!e barefaced fact
t!at t!e petitioner used t!ee(uipment it leased from t!e respondent
in connection $it! its pro;ect $it! +ect!el does
not proide a substantie basis for t!e filing of a t!ird-party
complaint against t!e latter#
T!ere is no causal connection bet$een t!e claim of t!e
respondent for t!e rental and
t!e balance of t!e purc!ase price of t!e e(uipment and parts
sold and leased to t!e
petitioner, and t!e failure of +ect!el to pay t!e balance of its
account to t!e petitioner
after t!e completion of t!e pro;ect in PueAon#
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
21/22
ARTURO BALBASTRO% /OSE PERE;% EGARO E LA CRU;% LEONARO
=ILLANUE=A a)* CONSORCIA HALILI v. COURT OF APPEALS% HON.
ALFRIO
E LOS ANGELES% #) # -a!a-#t? a /*9e o@ te Co"t o@ F#"t I)ta)-e
o@ R#al%
eo) C#t?% B"a)- I=% a)* FRANCISCO FERNANE;
G. R. No. L< 33$55 Nove2e" $+% 1+,$
FACTS(
% complaint for interpleader and consignation $as filed by C!iu
Neng Iong, Lim
+un Nong and Ra;indar 6ing!, $!o are lessees of t!ree doors of
t!e -door apartment,
against =rancisco =ernandeA and %ngela +utte, eac! of $!om $as
claiming o$ners!ip
oer t!e -door apartment and of t!e rig!t to collect t!e rents
t!erefrom# T!e plaintiffs
alleged t!at t!ey !ae no means of "no$ing definitely to $!om
t!ey s!ould pay rentals
Q $!et!er to +utte or =ernandeA#
In ans$er to plaintiffs< complaint defendant =ernandeA
alleged among ot!ers t!at
pending determination of t!e conflicting claims inoled in t!e
case !e $as granted
an ad interim aut!ority to collect and deposit $it! t!e court
t!e rentals due on t!e
sub;ect property# On t!e ot!er !and, defendant +utte claims t!at
being t!e o$ner of t!e
-door apartment in (uestion, s!e !as eery rig!t to collect t!e
rents of t!e property#
riate respondent =ernandeA filed a T!ird-arty Complaint against
t!e t!ird-
party defendants petitioners !ereinD $!o are t!e lessees of t!e
remaining doors of t!e
-door apartment because of t!eir refusal to recogniAe !is
aut!ority to collect t!e rents
on t!e doors leased by t!em# T!e t!ird-party defendants filed a
GMotion To 6tri"e Out
%nd4Or To >ismiss T!e T!ird-arty ComplaintG filed by
=ernandeA on t!e ground t!at
t!e filing of said T!ird-arty Complaint against t!em is in
iolation of t!e express
proisions of 6ection 1, Rule / of t!e Reised Rules of Court and
not in accord $it!
establis!ed ;urisprudence on t!e matter and on t!e furt!er
ground t!at said T!ird-arty
Complaint does not state any cause of action#
ISSUE(
5!et!er or not section 1 of Rule / of t!e Rules aut!oriAes a
defendant to bring
into t!e case any person not a party to t!e action, $!o is not
secondarily liable to said
defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any ot!er
relief in respect to t!eclaim of t!e plaintiff against t!e
defendant#
RULING(
No.
-
7/23/2019 #7 page(s) 8-9
22/22
6ection 1 of Rule / of t!e Reised Rules of Court aut!oriAes a
defendant to
bring into a la$suit any person Gnot a party to t!e action ###
for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any ot!er relief in respect of !is opponent
