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