Rule 6: Kinds of Pleadings

Gojo v. Goyola and Almoguera (October 30, 1970)

Facts:
Gojo alleged that the date for repurchase, May 26, 1952, having expired and the vendors not having been able to
repurchase, the ownership over the land involved had become consolidated in him. Goyala filed an opposition or answer
to the petition and denied the pacto de retro sale, it was a cash loan. RTC required the plaintiff to submit an amended
Complaint. Goyala filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or petition on the ground that 43 days had lapsed after
appellant's receipt of the trial court order, yet he failed and neglected to submit the amended complaint required of him.

Issue:
Whether or not plaintiff is in default with respect to defendants counterclaim.

Held:
No. Counterclaim falls within the category of compulsory counterclaim which does not call for an independent
answer as the complaint already denies its material allegations; and dismissal of the complaint in this case without
prejudice carried with it the dismissal of the said counterclaim. A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory
counterclaim may not be declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed
automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint.

Rule 7: Parts of a Pleading

Santo Tomas University Hospita vs. Surla (Aug. 17, 1998)

Facts:
Respondent spouses filed a complaint for damages against petitioner hospital that their son, while confined at
said hospital due to being born prematurely, had accidentally fallen from the incubator possibly causing serious harm to
the child. Petitioner filed its “Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim” asserting that respondents still owed to it the
hospital bills for confinement at the hospital and making a claim for moral and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees,
by reason of the supposed unfounded and malicious suit filed against it. Respondent sought the dismissal of petitioner's
counterclaim for its non- compliance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring that a complaint and
other initiatory pleadings, be accompanied with a certificate of non-forum shopping.

Isuue:
Whether or not compulsory counterclaim pleaded in an Answer may be dismissed on the ground of a
failure to accompany it with a certificate of non-forum shopping.

Held:
No, counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading. Certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in
a compulsory counterclaim. The real purpose of Administrative Circular No. 04-94, made effective on 01
April 1994, is to curb the malpractice commonly referred to also as forum- shopping. The language of the
circular distinctly suggests that it is primarily intended to cover an initiatory pleading or an incipient
application of a party asserting a claim for relief.