RAFAEL P. BELLEZA , plaintiff-appellant, vs. IRVING C.
HUNTINGTON, defendant-appellee.
Jeremias T. Sebastian for plaintiff and appellant.
A. R. Montemayor for defendant and appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WHEN TO SUSPEND CIVIL ACTION UNTIL
TERMINATION OF CRIMINAL ACTION. — Section 1 of Rule 107 applies only when the claimant in the civil case is the offended party in the criminal action and both cases arise from the same offense or transaction. 2. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; PARTIES; INDISPENSABLE PARTIES. — Plaintiff alleges that the buyer of defendant in connection with the latter's counterclaim is an American company in San Francisco, California, and therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and that inasmuch as said buyer is an indispensable party to the adjudication of the counterclaim and its presence in this case is essential, the court, it is claimed, can not entertain such counterclaim. Held: That company is not a party to the transaction. This matter depends solely upon the evidence the counterclaim may present in due time, which is open to the scrutiny and examination of the plaintiff. While the presence of said buyer is necessary in order that the plaintiff may cross-examine it with respect to the alleged purchase, it is not, however, indispensable within the meaning of the Rules of Court as to deprive the court of its jurisdiction to pass upon the counterclaim (section 8, Rule 3). 3. ID.; COUNTERCLAIMS; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AND TRIAL ON COUNTERCLAIM. — Plaintiff's complaint may be dismissed and the trial may be allowed to proceed with respect to the counterclaim if the latter is of an independent character and therefore "can remain pending for independent adjudication" (section 2, Rule 30).
DECISION
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J : p
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila