The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counterclaims were compulsory, not permissive, in nature. Compulsory counterclaims do not require payment of docket fees. The respondent had filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner regarding an allegedly libelous article. The petitioner then filed counterclaims alleging the respondent's complaint was filed maliciously to harass or humiliate her. The Court found the counterclaims were so intertwined with the main case that they could not proceed independently, and the same evidence would support or refute both claims. Therefore, the counterclaims were compulsory and the petitioner was not required to pay docket fees with her initiatory pleading.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counterclaims were compulsory, not permissive, in nature. Compulsory counterclaims do not require payment of docket fees. The respondent had filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner regarding an allegedly libelous article. The petitioner then filed counterclaims alleging the respondent's complaint was filed maliciously to harass or humiliate her. The Court found the counterclaims were so intertwined with the main case that they could not proceed independently, and the same evidence would support or refute both claims. Therefore, the counterclaims were compulsory and the petitioner was not required to pay docket fees with her initiatory pleading.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counterclaims were compulsory, not permissive, in nature. Compulsory counterclaims do not require payment of docket fees. The respondent had filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner regarding an allegedly libelous article. The petitioner then filed counterclaims alleging the respondent's complaint was filed maliciously to harass or humiliate her. The Court found the counterclaims were so intertwined with the main case that they could not proceed independently, and the same evidence would support or refute both claims. Therefore, the counterclaims were compulsory and the petitioner was not required to pay docket fees with her initiatory pleading.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner's counterclaims were compulsory, not permissive, in nature. Compulsory counterclaims do not require payment of docket fees. The respondent had filed a complaint for damages against the petitioner regarding an allegedly libelous article. The petitioner then filed counterclaims alleging the respondent's complaint was filed maliciously to harass or humiliate her. The Court found the counterclaims were so intertwined with the main case that they could not proceed independently, and the same evidence would support or refute both claims. Therefore, the counterclaims were compulsory and the petitioner was not required to pay docket fees with her initiatory pleading.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
TOPIC: COUNTERCLAIMS such as the payment of docket fees and
certification of forum shopping.
VILLANUEVA-ONG VS. ENRILE Petitioner opposed the respondent’s GR NO. 212904 | November 22, 2017 | Tijam, J. motion alleging that her counterclaims are both compulsory in nature, since Digested By: Griar, Marie Stephanie Therese A. both arose from the filing of respondent’s complaint. DOCTRINE/S: RTC: Gave the petitioner 15 days from Determination of the nature of counterclaim is receipt of the said order to pay the relevant for purposes of compliance to the docket fees, otherwise, the same will be requirements of initiatory pleadings. In order for dismissed. the court to acquire jurisdiction, permissive CA: Denied the petition for certiorari. counterclaims require payment of docket Hence, this petition. fees, while compulsory counterclaims do not. ISSUE/S: 1. Whether or not the counterclaims filed by the Tests to determine the nature of a petitioner is permissive or compulsory in nature. counterclaim: – The counterclaims are compulsory in (a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the character, hence, should be resolved without the claim and by the counterclaim largely the same? necessity of complying with the requirements for (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on initiatory pleadings. defendants' claims, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? HELD: (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiffs' claim as well as the A counterclaim is permissive if it does not defendants' counterclaim? and arise out of or is not necessarily connected with (d) Is there any logical relation between the the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. claim and the counterclaim? It is essentially an independent claim that A positive answer to all four questions would may be filed separately in another case. indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory. Determination of the nature of counterclaim is relevant for purposes of compliance to the FACTS: requirements of initiatory pleadings. In order for 4 December 2012: A complaint for the court to acquire jurisdiction, permissive damages was filed by Enrile counterclaims require payment of docket (respondent) against Villanueva-Ong fees, while compulsory counterclaims do (petitioner) based on the libelous article not. written by the petitioner which was published in the Opinion Section of the To determine whether a counterclaim is Philippine Star. compulsory or permissive, we have devised o The article characterizes Enrile the following tests: as a liar, fraud, and manipulator. (a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the o The statements tend to cause claim and by the counterclaim largely the same? dishonor, discredit, disrespect, (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on and contempt of respondent – defendants' claims, absent the compulsory for changing the history. counterclaim rule? 17 January 2013: Petitioner filed an (c) Will substantially the same evidence support Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims. or refute plaintiffs' claim as well as the o First compulsory counterclaim: defendants' counterclaim? and o Second compulsory (d) Is there any logical relation between the counterclaim: claim and the counterclaim? A motion to dismiss was filed by Enrile A positive answer to all four questions would which argued that the counterclaims indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory. filed by the petitioner are permissive in nature and must have complied with the In this case, the complaint filed by respondent requirements of an initiatory pleading for damages arose from the alleged malicious publication written by petitioner, hence central to pleadings. the resolution of the case is petitioner's malice, or specifically that the libelous statement must PETITION IS GRANTED. The Decision and be shown to have been written or published with Resolution of the Court of Appeals is the knowledge that they are false or in reckless REVERSED and SET ASIDE. disregard of whether they are false or not.
Petitioner's counterclaim presupposes bad faith
or malice on the part of respondent in instituting the complaint for damages. In the allegations supporting her counterclaims, it was alleged that respondent's complaint was filed merely to harass or humiliate her.
In this case, while it can be conceded that
petitioner can validly interpose a claim based on malicious prosecution, the question still remains as to the nature of her counterclaim, and the consequent obligation to comply with the requirements of 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
attorney's 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.
In this case, the counterclaims, set up by
petitioner arises from the filing of respondent's complaint. "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.
Petitioner's counterclaims should not be
prejudiced for non-compliance with the procedural requirements governing initiatory