522 C A A

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen

Co po a ion
*
G.R. No. 155173. No ember 23, 2004.

LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., (formerl Lafarge

Philippine , Inc.), LUZON CONTINENTAL LAND
CORPORATION, CONTINENTAL OPERATING CORPORATION
and PHILIP ROSEBERG, pe i ioner , . CONTINENTAL
CEMENT CORPORATION, GREGORY T. LIM and ANTHONY
A. MARIANO, re ponden .

Actions; Counterclaims; Pleadings and Practice; Words and Phrases;

Counterclaims are de ned as “any claim which a defending party may have
against an opposing party.” Counterclaims are de ned in Section 6 of
Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an claim which a defending
part ma have against an opposing part . The are generall allowed in
order to avoid a multiplicit of suits and to facilitate the disposition of the
whole controvers in a single action, such that the defendant s demand ma
be adjudged b a counterclaim rather than b an independent suit. The onl
limitations to this principle are (1) that the court should have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the counterclaim, and (2) that it could acquire
jurisdiction over third parties whose presence is essential for its
adjudication.
Same; Same; Same; A counterclaim is permissive “if it does not arise
out of or is not necessarily connected with the subject matter of the
opposing party’s claim.” A counterclaim ma either be permissive or
compulsor . It is permissive if it does not arise out of or is not necessaril
connected with the subject matter of the opposing part s claim. A
permissive counterclaim is essentiall an independent claim that ma be
led separatel in another case. A counterclaim is compulsor when its
object arises out of or is necessaril connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing part s claim and
does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Same; Same; Same; Compelling Test of Compulsoriness; Criteria to
Determine Whether a Counterclaim is Compulsory or Permis-

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
 523

. 443, E BE 23, 2004 523

Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

sive; The “compelling test of compulsoriness” characterizes a counterclaim

as compulsory if there should exist a “logical relationship” between the
main claim and the counterclaim. Unlike permissive counterclaims,
compulsor counterclaims should be set up in the same action; otherwise,
the would be barred forever. NAMARCO v. Federation of United Namarco
Distributors laid down the following criteria to determine whether a
counterclaim is compulsor or permissive: 1) Are issues of fact and law
raised b the claim and b the counterclaim largel the same? 2) Would res
judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant s claim, absent the compulsor
counterclaim rule? 3) Will substantiall the same evidence support or refute
plaintiff s claim as well as defendant s counterclaim? 4) Is there an logical
relation between the claim and the counterclaim? A positive answer to all
four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsor . Adopted
in Quintanilla v. CA and reiterated in Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation,
the compelling test of compulsoriness characteri es a counterclaim as
compulsor if there should exist a logical relationship between the main
claim and the counterclaim. There exists such a relationship when
conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail
substantial duplication of time and effort b the parties and the court; when
the multiple claims involve the same factual and legal issues; or when the
claims are offshoots of the same basic controvers between the parties.
Same; Same; Same; Damages; A counterclaim for damages allegedly
suffered by the defendant in consequence of the plaintiff’s action constitute
compulsory counterclaim. The above allegations show that petitioners
counterclaims for damages were the result of respondents (Lim and
Mariano) act of ling the Complaint and securing the Writ of Attachment in
bad faith. Tiu Po v. Bautista involved the issue of whether the counterclaim
that sought moral, actual and exemplar damages and attorne s fees against
respondents on account of their malicious and unfounded complaint was
compulsor . In that case, we held as follows: Petitioners counterclaim for
damages ful lls the necessar requisites of a compulsor counterclaim.
The are damages claimed to have been suffered b petitioners as a
consequence of the action led against them. The have to be pleaded in the
same action; otherwise, petitioners would be precluded b the judgment
from invoking the same in an independent action. The pronouncement in
Papa vs. Banaag (17 SCRA

524

524 E EC E A A ED
 Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

1081) (1966) is in point: Compensator , moral and exemplar damages,

allegedl suffered b the creditor in consequence of the debtor s action, are
also compulsor counterclaim barred b the dismissal of the debtor s action.
The cannot be claimed in a subsequent action b the creditor against the
debtor.
Same; Same; Same; Parties; The general rule that a defendant cannot
by a counterclaim bring into the action any claim against persons other
than the plaintiff admits of an exception under Section 14, Rule 6, i.e., when
the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required for
the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or
cross-claim, and jurisdiction over such parties can be obtained. Among
the issues raised in Sapugay was whether Cardenas, who was not a part to
the original action, might nevertheless be impleaded in the counterclaim. We
disposed of this issue as follows: A counterclaim is de ned as an claim
for mone or other relief which a defending part ma have against an
opposing part . However, the general rule that a defendant cannot b a
counterclaim bring into the action an claim against persons other than the
plaintiff admits of an exception under Section 14, Rule 6 which provides
that when the presence of parties other than those to the original action is
required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a
counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as
defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained. The inclusion,
therefore, of Cardenas in petitioners counterclaim is sanctioned b the
rules. The prerogative of bringing in new parties to the action at an stage
before judgment is intended to accord complete relief to all of them in a
single action and to avert a duplicit and even a multiplicit of suits thereb .
Same; Same; Same; Same; Corporation Law; Piercing the Veil
Corporate Fiction; Allegations of fraud and bad faith on the part of certain
corporate of cers or stockholders may warrant the piercing of the veil of
corporate ction so that the said individual may not seek refuge therein, but
may be held individually and personally liable for his or her actions. The
inclusion of a corporate of cer or stockholder Cardenas in Sapugay or
Lim and Mariano in the instant case is not premised on the assumption
that the plaintiff corporation does not have the nancial abilit to answer for
damages, such that it has to share its liabilit with individual defendants.
Rather, such inclusion is based on the allegations of fraud and bad faith on

525

. 443, E BE 23, 2004 525

Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

the part of the corporate of cer or stockholder. These allegations ma

warrant the piercing of the veil of corporate ction, so that the said
individual ma not seek refuge therein, but ma be held individuall and
personall liable for his or her actions. In Tramat Mercantile v. Court of
Appeals, the Court held that generall , it should onl be the corporation that
could properl be held liable. However, circumstances ma warrant the
inclusion of the personal liabilit of a corporate director, trustee, or of cer,
if the said individual is found guilt of bad faith or gross negligence in
directing corporate affairs. Remo Jr. v. IAC has stressed that while a
corporation is an entit separate and distinct from its stockholders, the
corporate ction ma be disregarded if used to defeat public convenience,
justif a wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime. In these instances, the law
will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in case of two
corporations, will merge them into one. Thus, there is no debate on
whether, in alleging bad faith on the part of Lim and Mariano the
counterclaims had in effect made them indispensable parties thereto;
based on the alleged facts, both are clearl parties in interest to the
counterclaim.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Suability and liability
are two distinct matters. Suabilit and liabilit are two distinct matters.
While the Court does rule that the counterclaims against Respondent CCC s
president and manager ma be properl led, the determination of whether
both can in fact be held jointl and severall liable with respondent
corporation is entirel another issue that should be ruled upon b the trial
court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; While a compulsory counterclaim may
implead persons not parties to the original complaint, the general rule that
a defendant in a compulsory counterclaim need not le any responsive
pleading—as it is deemed to have adopted the allegations in the complaint
as its answer—does not apply; A new party impleaded by the plaintiff in a
compulsory counterclaim cannot be considered to have automatically and
unknowingly submitted to the jurisdiction of the court—summons must be
served on them for the court to obtain jurisdiction over them. However,
while a compulsor counterclaim ma implead persons not parties to the
original complaint, the general rule a defendant in a compulsor
counterclaim need not le an responsive pleading, as it is deemed to have
adopted the allegations in the complaint as its answer does not

52

526 E EC E A A ED

Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

appl . The ling of a responsive pleading is deemed a voluntar submission

to the jurisdiction of the court; a new part impleaded b the plaintiff in a
compulsor counterclaim cannot be considered to have automaticall and
unknowingl submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. A contrar ruling
would result in mischievous consequences whereb a part ma be
indiscriminatel impleaded as a defendant in a compulsor counterclaim;
and judgment rendered against it without its knowledge, much less
participation in the proceedings, in blatant disregard of rudimentar due
process requirements. The correct procedure in instances such as this is for
the trial court, per Section 12 of Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, to order
[such impleaded parties] to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over
them can be obtained, b directing that summons be served on them. In this
manner, the can be properl appraised of and answer the charges against
them. Onl upon service of summons can the trial court obtain jurisdiction
over them.
Obligations and Contracts; Joint and Solidary Obligations;
Obligations may be classi ed as either joint or solidary; Petitioners’ usage
of the term “joint and solidary” is confusing and ambiguous. Obligations
ma be classi ed as either joint or solidar . Joint or jointl or
conjoint means mancum or mancomunada or pro rata obligation; on the
other hand, solidar obligations ma be used interchangeabl with joint
and several or several. Thus, petitioners usage of the term joint and
solidar is confusing and ambiguous.
Same; Same; Torts; Obligations arising from tort are, by their nature,
always solidary. The ambiguit in petitioners counterclaims
notwithstanding, respondents liabilit , if proven, is solidar . This
characteri ation nds basis in Article 1207 of the Civil Code, which
provides that obligations are generall considered joint, except when
otherwise expressl stated or when the law or the nature of the obligation
requires solidarit . However, obligations arising from tort are, b their
nature, alwa s solidar . We have assiduousl maintained this legal principle
as earl as 1912 in Worcester v. Ocampo, in which we held: x x x The
dif cult in the contention of the appellants is that the fail to recogni e that
the basis of the present action is tort. The fail to recogni e the universal
doctrine that each joint tort feasor is not onl individuall liable for the tort
in which he participates, but is also jointl liable with his tort feasors. x x x
It ma be stated as a general rule that joint tort feasors

52

. 443, E BE 23, 2004 527

Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

are all the persons who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise,
countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done for their bene t. The are each liable as
principals, to the same extent and in the same manner as if the had
performed the wrongful act themselves. x x x Joint tort feasors are jointl
and severall liable for the tort which the commit. The persons injured ma
sue all of them or an number less than all. Each is liable for the whole
damages caused b all, and all together are jointl liable for the whole
damage. It is no defense for one sued alone, that the others who participated
in the wrongful act are not joined with him as defendants; nor is it an
excuse for him that his participation in the tort was insigni cant as
compared to that of the others. x x x Joint tort feasors are not liable pro
rata. The damages can not be apportioned among them, except among
themselves. The cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose of
each pa ing an aliquot part. The are jointl and severall liable for the
whole amount. x x x
 Same; Same; Same; The fact that the liability sought against the
corporation is for speci c performance and tort, while that sought against
the individual respondents is based solely on tort does not negate the
solidary nature of their liability for alleged tortuous acts. In a joint
obligation, each obligor answers onl for a part of the whole liabilit ; in a
solidar or joint and several obligation, the relationship between the
active and the passive subjects is so close that each of them must compl
with or demand the ful llment of the whole obligation. The fact that the
liabilit sought against the CCC is for speci c performance and tort, while
that sought against the individual respondents is based solel on tort does
not negate the solidar nature of their liabilit for tortuous acts alleged in
the counterclaims. Article 1211 of the Civil Code is explicit on this point:
Solidarit ma exist although the creditors and the debtors ma not be
bound in the same manner and b the same periods and conditions.
Same; Same; Same; In cases led by the creditor, a solidary debtor
may invoke defenses arising from the nature of the obligation, from
circumstances personal to it, or even from those personal to its co-debtors.
The solidar character of respondents alleged liabilit is precisel wh
credence cannot be given to petitioners assertion. According to such
assertion, Respondent CCC cannot move to dis-

52

528 E EC E A A ED

Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

miss the counterclaims on grounds that pertain solel to its individual co-
debtors. In cases led b the creditor, a solidar debtor ma invoke defenses
arising from the nature of the obligation, from circumstances personal to it,
or even from those personal to its co-debtors. Article 1222 of the Civil Code
provides: A solidar debtor ma , in actions led b the creditor, avail itself
of all defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of
those which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With respect to
those which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof
only as regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible.
(Emphasis supplied). The act of Respondent CCC as a solidar debtor that
of ling a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on grounds that pertain onl
to its individual co-debtors is therefore allowed.
Same; Same; Same; Compulsory Counterclaims; Counterclaims that
are only for damages and attorney’s fees and that arise from the ling of the
complaint shall be considered as special defenses and need not be
answered. However, a perusal of its Motion to Dismiss the counterclaims
shows that Respondent CCC led it on behalf of Co-respondents Lim and
Mariano; it did not pra that the counterclaim against it be dismissed. Be
that as it ma , Respondent CCC cannot be declared in default. Jurisprudence
teaches that if the issues raised in the compulsor counterclaim are so
intertwined with the allegations in the complaint, such issues are deemed
automaticall joined. Counterclaims that are onl for damages and
attorne s fees and that arise from the ling of the complaint shall be
considered as special defenses and need not be answered.
Same; Same; Same; A corporation has a legal personality entirely
separate and distinct from that of its of cers and cannot act for and on their
behalf, without being so authorized. While Respondent CCC can move to
dismiss the counterclaims against it b raising grounds that pertain to
individual defendants Lim and Mariano, it cannot le the same Motion on
their behalf for the simple reason that it lacks the requisite authorit to do
so. A corporation has a legal personalit entirel separate and distinct from
that of its of cers and cannot act for and on their behalf, without being so
authori ed. Thus, unless expressl adopted b Lim and Mariano, the Motion
to Dismiss the compulsor counterclaim led b Respondent CCC has no
force and effect as to them.

52

. 443, B 23, 2004 529

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

PETITION for re ie on cer iorari of he order of he Regional

Trial Co r of Q e on Ci , Br. 80.

The fac are a ed in he opinion of he Co r .

S c , Sa a a , H a d a d Ga a a for pe i ioner .
Pa a , B a c , Sa a d F a c La O c for
re ponden Con inen al Cemen Corpora ion.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Ma defendan in ci il ca e implead in heir co n erclaim per on

ho ere no par ie o he original complain ? Thi i he main
q e ion o be an ered in hi con ro er .

The Case
1
Before i a Pe i ion for Re ie nder R2 le 45 of he R le of
Co r , eeking
3 o n llif he Ma 22, 2002 and he Sep ember 3,
2002 Order of he Regional Trial Co r (RTC) of Q e on Ci
(Branch 80) in Ci il Ca e No. Q-00-41103. The decre al por ion of
he r a ailed Order read :

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing as earlier stated, the plaintiff s

motion to dismiss claims is granted. Accordingl , the defendants claims
against Mr.4 Lim and Mr. Mariano captioned as their counterclaims are
dismissed.

The econd challenged Order denied pe i ioner Mo ion for

Recon idera ion.

_______________
 1 Rollo, pp. 18-53.
2 Id., pp. 55-58. Penned by Judge Agustin S. Dizon.
3 Id., pp. 59-61.
4 RTC Order dated May 22, 2002, p. 4; Rollo, p. 58.

530

530 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

The Facts

Brie , he origin of he pre en con ro er can be raced o he

Le er of In en (LOI) e ec ed b bo h par ie on A g 11, 1998,
hereb Pe i ioner Lafarge Cemen Philippine , Inc. (Lafarge) on
behalf of i af lia e and o her q ali ed en i ie , incl ding
Pe i ioner L on Con inen al Land Corpora ion (LCLC) agreed o
p rcha e he cemen b ine of Re ponden Con inen al Cemen
Corpora ion (CCC). On Oc ober 21, 1998, bo h par ie en ered in o a
Sale and P rcha e Agreemen (SPA). A he ime of he foregoing
ran ac ion , pe i ioner ere ell a are ha CCC had a ca e
pending i h he S preme Co r . The ca e a docke ed a G.R.
No. 119712, en i led A P a a T (APT) . C
A a a dC a C C a .
In an icipa ion of he liabili ha he High Trib nal migh
adj dge again CCC, he par ie , nder Cla e 2 (c) of he SPA,
allegedl agreed o re ain from he p rcha e price a por ion of he
con rac price in he amo n of P117,020,846.84 he eq i alen of
US$2,799,140. Thi amo n a o be depo i ed in an in ere -
bearing acco n in he Fir Na ional Ci Bank of Ne York
(Ci ibank) for pa men o APT, he pe i ioner in G.R. No. 119712.
Ho e er, pe i ioner allegedl ref ed o appl he m o he
pa men o APT, de pi e he b eq en nali of he Deci ion in
G.R. No. 119712 in fa or of he la er and he repea ed in r c ion
of Re ponden CCC. Fearf l ha nonpa men o APT o ld re l
in he foreclo re, no j of i proper ie co ered b he SPA i h
Lafarge b of e eral o her proper ie a ell, CCC led before he
Regional Trial Co r of Q e on Ci on J ne 20, 2000, a
Complain i h Applica ion for Preliminar A achmen again
pe i ioner . Docke ed a Ci il Ca e No. Q-00-41103, he Complain
pra ed, among o her , ha pe i ioner be direc ed o pa he APT
Re ained Amo n referred o in Cla e 2 (c) of he SPA.
531

. 443, B 23, 2004 531

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion
Pe i ioner mo ed o di mi he Complain on he gro nd ha i
iola ed he prohibi ion on for m hopping. Re ponden CCC had
allegedl made he ame claim i a rai ing in Ci il Ca e No. Q-
00-41103 in ano her ac ion, hich in ol ed he ame par ie and
hich a led earlier before he In erna ional Chamber of
Commerce. Af er he rial co r denied he Mo ion o Di mi in i
No ember 14, 2000 Order, pe i ioner ele a ed he ma er before he
Co r of Appeal in CA-G.R. SP No. 68688.
In he mean ime, o a oid being in defa l and i ho prej dice
o he o come of heir appeal, pe i ioner led heir An er and
Comp l or Co n erclaim ad Ca a before he rial co r in
Ci il Ca e No. Q-00-41103. In heir An er, he denied he
allega ion in he Complain . The pra ed b a of comp l or
co n erclaim again Re ponden CCC, i majori ockholder and
pre iden Gregor T. Lim, and i corpora e ecre ar An hon A.
Mariano for he m of (a) P2,700,000 each a ac al damage ,
(b) P100,000,000 each a e emplar damage , (c) P100,000,000
each a moral damage , and (d) P5,000,000 each a a orne fee
pl co of i .
Pe i ioner alleged ha CCC, hro gh Lim and Mariano, had led
he ba ele Complain in Ci il Ca e No. Q-00-41103 and
proc red he Wri of A achmen in5 bad fai h. Rel ing on hi Co r
prono ncemen in Sa a . CA, pe i ioner pra ed ha bo h Lim
and Mariano be held join l and olidaril liable i h Re ponden
CCC.
On behalf of Lim and Mariano ho had e o le an re pon i e
pleading, CCC mo ed o di mi pe i ioner comp l or
co n erclaim on gro nd ha e en iall con i ed he er i e
for re ol ion in he in an Pe i ion.

_______________

5 183 SCRA 464, March 21, 1990.

532

532 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

Ruling of the Trial Court

On Ma 22, 2002, he Regional Trial Co r of Q e on Ci (Branch

80) di mi ed pe i ioner co n erclaim for e eral rea on , among
hich ere he follo ing: a) he co n erclaim again Re ponden
Lim and Mariano ere no comp l or ; b) he r ling in Sa a
a no applicable; and c) pe i ioner An er i h Co n erclaim 6
iola ed proced ral r le on he proper joinder of ca e of ac ion.
Ac ing on he Mo ion for Recon idera ion led b pe i ioner , he
rial co r in an Amended Order da ed Sep ember 3, 2002
admi ed ome error in i Ma 22, 2002 Order, par ic larl in i
prono ncemen ha heir co n erclaim had been pleaded again
Lim and Mariano onl . Ho e er, he RTC clari ed ha i a
di mi ing he co n erclaim in ofar a i impleaded Re ponden
Lim and Mariano, e en if i incl ded CCC.
Hence hi Pe i ion.

Issues

In heir Memorand m, pe i ioner rai e he follo ing i e for o r

con idera ion:

[a] Whe her or no he RTC gra el erred in ref ing o r le

ha Re ponden CCC ha no per onali o mo e o di mi
pe i ioner comp l or co n erclaim on Re ponden Lim
and Mariano behalf.

_______________

6 RTC Order dated May 22, 2002; Rollo, pp. 9-12.

Rollo, pp. 59-61.
This case was deemed submitted for decision on November 13, 2003, upon
receipt by this Court of Petitioners’ Memorandum signed by Atty. Norma Margarita
B. Patacsil of the Sycip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Law Firm. Respondent
CCC’s Memorandum, signed by Attys. Rodolf C. Britanico and Melanie T. Chua of
the Pangilinan Britanico Sarmiento & Franco Law Of ces, was received by the Court
on October 10, 2003.

533

. 443, B 23, 2004 533

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

[b] Whe her or no he RTC gra el erred in r ling ha (i)

pe i ioner co n erclaim again Re ponden Lim and
Mariano are no comp l or ; (ii) Sa a . C
A a i inapplicable here; and (iii) pe i ioner iola ed
he r le on joinder of ca e of ac ion.

For clari and coherence, he Co r ill re ol e he foregoing in

re er e order.

The Court s Ruling

The Pe i ion i meri orio .

First Issue:
Counterclaims and
Joinder of Causes of Action.

P C ca C
Co n erclaim are de ned in Sec ion 6 of R le 6 of he R le of
Ci il Proced re a an claim hich a defending par ma ha e
again an oppo ing par . The are generall allo ed in order o
a oid a m l iplici of i and o facili a e he di po i ion of he
hole con ro er in a ingle ac ion, ch ha he defendan
demand ma be adj dged b a co n erclaim ra her han b an
independen i . The onl limi a ion o hi principle are: (1) ha
he co r ho ld ha e j ri dic ion o er he bjec ma er of he
co n erclaim, and (2) ha i co ld acq ire j ri dic ion
10 o er hird
par ie ho e pre ence i e en ial for i adj dica ion.
A co n erclaim ma ei her be permi i e or comp l or . I i
permi i e if i doe no ari e o of or i no nece aril connec ed
i h he bjec ma er of he oppo ing par

_______________

Rollo, p. 383.
10 See Section 7, Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

534

534 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion
11
claim. A permi i e co n erclaim i e en iall an independen
claim ha ma be led epara el in ano her ca e.
A co n erclaim i comp l or hen i objec ari e o of or i
nece aril connec ed i h he ran ac ion or occ rrence con i ing
he bjec ma er of he oppo ing par claim and doe no req ire
for i adj dica ion he pre ence
12 of hird par ie of hom he co r
canno acq ire j ri dic ion.
Unlike permi i e co n erclaim , comp l or co n erclaim
ho ld be e p in he ame ac ion; o her i e, he o ld be barred 13
fore er. NAMARCO . F d a U d Na a c D b
laid do n he follo ing cri eria o de ermine he her a co n erclaim
i comp l or or permi i e: 1) Are i e of fac and la rai ed b
he claim and b he co n erclaim largel he ame? 2) Wo ld
d ca a bar a b eq en i on defendan claim, ab en he
comp l or co n erclaim r le? 3) Will b an iall he ame
e idence ppor or ref e plain iff claim a ell a defendan
co n erclaim? 4) I here an logical rela ion be een he claim and
he co n erclaim? A po i i e an er o all fo r q e ion o ld
indica e ha he co n erclaim i comp14 l or .
Adop ed in Q a 15 a . CA and rei era ed in A da . FGU
I a c C a , he compelling e of comp l orine
charac eri e a co n erclaim a comp l or if here ho ld e i a
 logical rela ion hip be een he main claim and he co n erclaim.
There e i ch a rela ion hip hen cond c ing epara e rial of
he re pec i e claim of he par ie o ld en ail b an ial
d plica ion of ime and effor b he par ie and he co r ; hen he
m l iple claim in ol e he ame fac al and legal i e ; or hen
he claim are off hoo of he ame ba ic con ro er be een he
par ie .

_______________

11 Lope . Gloria, 40 Phil. 26, August 30, 1919, per Torres, J.

12 See Section 7, Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
13 151 Phil. 338; 49 SCRA 238, January 31, 1973.
14 344 Phil. 811; 279 SCRA 397, September 24, 1997.
15 350 SCRA 113, January 23, 2001.

535

. 443, B 23, 2004 535

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

We hall no e amine he na re of pe i ioner co n erclaim

again re ponden i h he e of he foregoing parame er .
Pe i ioner ba e heir co n erclaim on he follo ing allega ion :

Gregor T. Lim and Anthon A. Mariano were the persons responsible for
making the bad faith decisions for, and causing plaintiff to le this baseless
suit and to procure an unwarranted writ of attachment, notwithstanding their
knowledge that plaintiff has no right to bring it or to secure the writ. In
taking such bad faith actions, Gregor T. Lim was motivated b his personal
interests as one of the owners of plaintiff while Anthon A. Mariano was
motivated b his sense of personal lo alt to Gregor T. Lim, for which
reason he disregarded the fact that plaintiff is without an valid cause.
Consequentl , both Gregor T. Lim and Anthon A. Mariano are the
plaintiff s co-joint tortfeasors in the commission of the acts complained of
in this answer and in the compulsor counterclaims pleaded below. As such
the should be held jointl and solidaril liable as plaintiff s co-defendants
to those compulsor counterclaims pursuant to the Supreme Court s
decision in Sapugay v. Mobil.
xxx xxx xxx
The plaintiff s, Gregor T. Lim and Anthon A. Mariano s bad faith
ling of this baseless case has compelled the defendants to engage the
services of counsel for a fee and to incur costs of litigation, in amounts to be
proved at trial, but in no case less than P5 million for each of them and for
which plaintiff Gregor T. Lim and Anthon A. Mariano should be held
jointl and solidaril liable.
The plaintiff s, Gregor T. Lim s and Anthon A. Mariano s actions
have damaged the reputations of the defendants and the should be held
jointl and solidaril liable to them for moral damages of P100 million each.
In order to serve as an example for the public good and to deter similar
baseless, bad faith litigation, the plaintiff, Gregor T. Lim and Anthon A.
Mariano should be held jointl and solidaril
16 liable to the defendants for
exemplar damages of P100 million each.

_______________

16 Answer and Counterclaim ad Ca elam, pp. 7-9; Rollo, (Annex “L”) pp. 190-
192.

536

536 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

The abo e allega ion ho ha pe i ioner co n erclaim for

damage ere he re l of re ponden (Lim and Mariano) ac of
ling he Complain and 1ec ring he Wri of A achmen in bad
fai h. T P . Ba a in ol ed he i e of he her he
co n erclaim ha o gh moral, ac al and e emplar damage and
a orne fee again re ponden on acco n of heir malicio
and nfo nded complain a comp l or . In ha ca e, e held a
follo :

Petitioners counterclaim for damages ful lls the necessar requisites of a

compulsor counterclaim. The are damages claimed to have been suffered
b petitioners as a consequence of the action led against them. The have
to be pleaded in the same action; otherwise, petitioners would be precluded
b the judgment from invoking the same in an independent action. The
pronouncement in Papa vs. Banaag (17 SCRA 1081) (1966) is in point:

C m e a , m al a d e em la damage , allegedl ffe ed b he c edi i

c e e ce f he deb ac i , a e al c m l c e claim ba ed b he
di mi al f he deb ac i . The ca be claimed i a be e ac i b
he c edi agai he deb .

Aside from the fact that petitioners counterclaim for damages cannot
be the subject of an independent action, it is the same evidence that sustains
petitioners counterclaim that will refute private respondent s own claim for
damages. This is an additional
1 factor that characteri es petitioners
counterclaim as compulsor .

Moreo er, ing he compelling e of comp l orine , e nd

ha , clearl , he reco er of pe i ioner co n erclaim i con ingen
pon he ca e led b re ponden ; h , cond c ing epara e rial
hereon ill re l in a b an ial d plica ion of he ime and effor
of he co r and he par ie .
Since he co n erclaim for damage i comp l or , i m be e
p in he ame ac ion; o her i e, i o ld be barred fore er. If i i
led conc rren l i h he main ac ion b in a

_______________

1 191 Phil. 17; 103 SCRA 388, March 17, 1981.

 1 Id., p. 20; p. 391, per Melencio-Herrera, J.

537

. 443, B 23, 2004 537

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

differen proceeding, i o ld be aba ed on he gro nd of

d a; if led b 1eq en l , i o ld mee he ame fa e on he
gro nd of d ca a.

Sa a .C A a
A cab Ca a Ba
Sa a . C A a nd applica ion in he pre en ca e. In
Sa a , Re ponden Mobil Philippine led before he rial co r of
Pa ig an ac ion for reple in again Spo e Marino and Lina Joel
Sap ga . The Complain aro e from he ppo ed fail re of he
co ple o keep heir end of heir Dealer hip Agreemen . In heir
An er i h Co n erclaim, pe i ioner alleged ha af er inc rring
e pen e in an icipa ion of he Dealer hip Agreemen , he
req e ed he plain iff o allo hem o ge ga , b ha i had
ref ed. I claimed ha he ill had o po a re bond hich,
ini iall ed a P200,000, a la er rai ed o P700,000.
The po e e er ed all effor o ec re a bond, b he bonding
companie req ired a cop of he Dealer hip Agreemen , hich
re ponden con in ed o i hhold from hem. La er, pe i ioner
di co ered ha re ponden and i manager, Ricardo P. Cardena ,
had in ended all along o a ard he dealer hip o I land Air Prod c
Corpora ion.
In heir An er, pe i ioner impleaded in he co n erclaim Mobil
Philippine and i manager Ricardo P. Cardena a defendan .
The pra ed ha j dgmen be rendered, holding bo h join l and
e erall liable for pre-opera ion e pen e , ren al, orage, g arding
fee , and nreali ed pro incl ding damage . Af er bo h Mobil and
Cardena failed o re pond o heir An er o he Co n erclaim,
pe i ioner led a Mo ion o Declare Plain iff and i Manager
Ricardo P. Cardena in Defa l on Defendan Co n erclaim.

_______________

1 Me als Engineering Reso rces . Co r of Appeals, 203 SCRA 273, October 28,
1991.

53

538 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion
Among he i e rai ed in Sa a a he her Cardena , ho
a no a par o he original ac ion, migh ne er hele be
impleaded in he co n erclaim. We di po ed of hi i e a follo :

A counterclaim is de ned as an claim for mone or other relief which a

defending part ma have against an opposing part . However, the general
rule that a defendant cannot b a counterclaim bring into the action an
claim against persons other than the plaintiff admits of an exception under
Section 14, Rule 6 which provides that when the presence of parties other
than those to the original action is required for the granting of complete
relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall
order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be
obtained. The inclusion, therefore,
20 of Cardenas in petitioners counterclaim
is sanctioned b the rules.

The preroga i e of bringing in ne par ie o he ac ion a an age

before j dgmen i in ended o accord comple e relief o all of hem
in a ingle ac ion and o a er a d plici and e en a m l iplici of
i hereb .
In in i ing on he inapplicabili of Sa a , re ponden arg e
ha ne par ie canno be incl ded in a co n erclaim, e cep hen
no comple e relief can be had. The add ha [i]n he pre en ca e,
Me r . Lim and Mariano are no nece ar for pe i ioner o ob ain
comple e relief from Re ponden CCC a plain iff in he lo er co r .
Thi i beca e Re ponden CCC a a corpora ion i h a epara e
[legal per onali ] ha he j ridical capaci21 o indemnif pe i ioner
e en i ho Me r . Lim and Mariano.
We di agree. The incl ion of a corpora e of cer or ockholder
Cardena in Sa a or Lim and Mariano in he in an ca e i
no premi ed on he a mp ion ha he

_______________

20 Sap ga . Co r of Appeals, s pra on pp. 469-470, per Regalado, J. Section 14,

Rule 6 is now Section 12, Rule 6 under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
21 Respondents’ Memorandum, p. 11; Rollo, p. 360.

53

. 443, B 23, 2004 539

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

plain iff corpora ion doe no ha e he nancial abili o an er for

damage , ch ha i ha o hare i liabili i h indi id al
defendan . Ra her, ch incl ion i ba ed on he allega ion of
fra d and bad fai h on he par of he corpora e of cer or
ockholder. The e allega ion ma arran he piercing of he eil
of corpora e c ion, o ha he aid indi id al ma no eek ref ge
herein, b ma be held indi id all and per onall liable for hi or
her ac ion .
 In T a a M ca .C A a , he Co r held ha
generall , i ho ld onl be he corpora ion ha co ld properl be
held liable. Ho e er, circ m ance ma arran he incl ion of
he per onal liabili of a corpora e direc or, r ee, or of cer, if he
aid indi id al i fo nd g il of bad fai h or gro negligence in
direc ing corpora e affair
23 .
R , J . . IAC ha re ed ha hile a corpora ion i an
en i epara e and di inc from i ockholder , he corpora e
c ion ma be di regarded if ed o defea p blic con enience,
j if a rong, pro ec fra d, or defend crime. In he e in ance ,
he la ill regard he corpora ion a an a ocia ion of per on , or
in ca e of o corpora ion , ill merge hem in o one. Th , here
i no deba e on he her, in alleging bad fai h on he par of Lim and
Mariano he co n erclaim had in effec made hem indi pen able
par ie here o; ba ed on he 24 alleged fac , bo h are clearl par ie in
in ere o he co n erclaim.

_______________

22 238 SCRA 14, November 7, 1994.

23 172 SCRA 405, April 18, 1989, p. 408, per Gancayao, J.
24 Section 2 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

R a a - - .A a a a a b b
b a a a . U
a b a R , a b a
a a .
S 7 R 3 1997 R C P :

540

540 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

Re ponden f r her a er ha Me r . Lim and Mariano canno be

held per onall liable [beca e heir a ailed ac ] are i hin he
po er gran ed o hem b he proper board re ol ion ; herefore, i
i no a per onal deci ion b ra her 25ha of he corpora ion a
repre en ed b i board of direc or . The foregoing a er ion,
ho e er, i a ma er of defen e ha ho ld be hre hed o d ring
he rial; he her or no fra d i e an nder he circ m 26 ance i
an i e ha m be e abli hed b con incing e idence.
S abili and liabili are o di inc ma er . While he Co r
doe r le ha he co n erclaim again Re ponden CCC pre iden
and manager ma be properl led, he de ermina ion of he her
bo h can in fac be held join l and e erall liable i h re ponden
corpora ion i en irel ano her i e ha ho ld be r led pon b he
rial co r .
Ho e er, hile a comp l or co n erclaim ma implead per on
no par ie o he original complain , he general r le a defendan
in a comp l or co n erclaim need no le an re pon i e pleading,
a i i deemed o ha e adop ed he allega ion in he complain a i
an er doe no appl . The ling of a re pon i e pleading i
deemed a ol n ar bmi ion o he j ri dic ion of he co r ; a
ne par impleaded b he plain iff in a comp l or co n erclaim
canno be con idered o ha e a oma icall and nkno ingl
bmi ed o he j ri dic ion of he co r . A con rar r ling o ld
re l in mi chie o con eq ence hereb a par ma be
indi crimina el impleaded a a defendan in a comp l or
co n erclaim; and j dgmen rendered again i i ho i
kno ledge, m ch le par icipa ion in he proceeding , in bla an
di regard of r dimen ar d e proce req iremen .

_______________

C J ab a . Pa a
a a b a a a a b a a a .

25 Respondent CCC’s Memorandum, pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 361-362.

26 Remo, Jr. . In ermedia e Appella e Co r , s pra.

541

. 443, B 23, 2004 541

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

The correc proced re in in ance ch a hi i for he rial co r ,

per Sec ion 12 of R le 6 of he R le of Co r , o order [ ch
impleaded par ie ] o be bro gh in a defendan , if j ri dic ion
o er hem can be ob ained, b direc ing ha mmon be er ed on
hem. In hi manner, he can be properl apprai ed of and an er
he charge again hem. Onl pon er ice of mmon can he
rial co r ob ain j ri dic ion o er hem.
In Sa a , Cardena a f rni hed a cop of he An er i h
Co n erclaim, b he did no le an re pon i e pleading o he
co n erclaim le eled again him. Ne er hele , he Co r ga e d e
con idera ion o cer ain fac al circ m ance , par ic larl he rial
co r rea men of he Complain a he An er of Cardena o he
comp l or co n er-claim and of hi eeming acq ie cence here o,
a e idenced b hi fail re o make an objec ion de pi e hi ac i e
par icipa ion in he proceeding . I a held h :

It is noteworth that Cardenas did not le a motion to dismiss the

counterclaim against him on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. While it is a
settled rule that the issue of jurisdiction ma be raised even for the rst time
on appeal, this does not obtain in the instant case. Although it was onl
Mobil which led an opposition to the motion to declare in default, the fact
that the trial court denied said motion, both as to Mobil and Cardenas on the
ground that Mobil s complaint should be considered as the answer to
petitioners compulsor counterclaim, leads us to the inescapable conclusion
that the trial court treated the opposition as having been led in behalf of
both Mobil and Cardenas and that the latter had adopted as his answer the
allegations raised in the complaint of Mobil. Obviousl , it was this
ratiocination which led the trial court to den the motion to declare Mobil
and Cardenas in default. Furthermore, Cardenas was not unaware of said
incidents and the proceedings therein as he testi ed and was present during
trial, not to speak of the fact that as manager of Mobil he would necessaril
be interested in the case and could readil have access to the records and the
pleadings led therein.
B adopting as his answer the allegations in the complaint which seeks
af rmative relief, Cardenas is deemed to have recog-

542

542 E EC E A A ED
Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

ni ed the jurisdiction of the trial court over his person and submitted2 thereto.
He ma not now be heard to repudiate or question that jurisdiction.

S ch fac al circ m ance are na ailing in he in an ca e. The

record do no ho ha Re ponden Lim and Mariano are ei her
a are of he co n erclaim led again hem, or ha he ha e
ac i el par icipa ed in he proceeding in ol ing hem. F r her, in
di mi ing he co n erclaim again he indi id al re ponden , he
co r a nlike in Sa a canno be aid o ha e rea ed
Re ponden CCC Mo ion o Di mi a ha ing been led on heir
behalf.

R P J d Ca Ac Pa N
A cab
Re ponden CCC con end ha pe i ioner co n erclaim iola ed
he r le on joinder of ca e of ac ion. I arg e ha hile he
original Complain a a i for peci c performance ba ed on a
con rac , he co n erclaim
2 for damage a ba ed on he or o
ac of re ponden . In i Mo ion o Di mi , CCC ci e Sec ion 5
of R le 2 and Sec ion 6 of R le 3 of he R le of Ci il Proced re,
hich e q o e:

Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. A part ma in one pleading

assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as man causes of action as he ma
have against an opposing part , subject to the following conditions:
(a) The part joining the causes of action shall compl with the rules on
joinder of parties; x x x
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. All persons in whom or
against whom an right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same
transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist whether jointl ,
severall , or in the alternative, ma , except as otherwise provided in these
Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as

_______________

2 Sap ga . Co r of Appeals; s pra, . 470-471.

2 See R CCC M a , . 11-12; R , . 360-361.
 543

. 443, E BE 23, 2004 543

Lafa ge Ceme Phili i e , I c. .C i e al Ceme C ai

defendants in one complaint, where an question of law or fact common to

all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants ma arise in the action; but the
court ma make such orders as ma be just to prevent an plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with an
proceedings in which he ma have no interest.

The foregoing proced ral r le are fo nded on prac icali and

con enience. The are mean o di co rage d plici and
m l iplici of i . Thi objec i e i nega ed b in i ing a he
co r a ha done ha he comp l or co n erclaim for
damage be di mi ed, onl o ha e i po ibl re- led in a epara e
proceeding. More impor an , a e ha e a ed earlier, Re ponden
Lim and Mariano are real par ie in in ere o he comp l or
co n erclaim; i i impera i e ha he be joined herein. Sec ion 7
of R le 3 pro ide :

Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest without

whom no nal determination can be had of an action shall be joined either
as plaintiffs or defendants.

Moreo er, in joining Lim and Mariano in he comp l or

co n erclaim, pe i ioner are being con i en i h he olidar
na re of he liabili alleged herein.

Second Issue:
CCC s Personalit to Move to Dismiss
the Compulsor Counterclaims

Charac eri ing heir co n erclaim for damage again Re ponden

CCC, Lim and Mariano a join and olidar , pe i ioner pra ed:

WHEREFORE, it is respectfull pra ed that after trial judgment be

rendered:

1. Dismissing the complaint in its entiret ;

2. Ordering the plaintiff, Gregor T. Lim and Anthon A. Mariano
jointl and solidaril to pa defendant actual damages in the sum of
at least P2,700,000.00;

544

544 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion
 3. Ordering the plaintiff, Gregor T. Lim and Anthon A, Mariano
jointl and solidaril to pa the defendants LPI, LCLC, COC and
Roseberg:

a. Exemplar damages of P100 million each;

b. Moral damages of P100 million each; and
c. Attorne s fees and costs of suit of at least P5 million each.
2
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise pra ed for.

Obliga ion ma be cla i ed a ei her join or olidar . Join or

join l or conjoin mean a c or a c ada or aa
obliga ion; on he o her hand, olidar obliga ion ma be ed
in erchangeabl i h join and e eral or e eral. Th ,
pe i ioner age of he erm join and olidar i conf ing and
ambig o .
The ambig i in pe i ioner co n erclaim no i h anding,
re ponden liabili , if pro en, i olidar . Thi charac eri a ion
nd ba i in Ar icle 1207 of he Ci il Code, hich pro ide ha
obliga ion are generall con idered join , e cep hen o her i e
e pre l a ed or hen he la or he na re of he obliga ion
req ire olidari . Ho e er, obliga ion ari ing from or are, b
heir na re, al a olidar . We ha e a id o l main30ained hi
legal principle a earl a 1912 in W c . Oca , in hich
e held:

x x x The dif cult in the contention of the appellants is that the fail to
recogni e that the basis of the present action is tort. The fail to recogni e
the universal doctrine that each joint tort feasor is not onl individuall
liable for the tort in which he participates, but is also jointl liable with his
tort feasors. x x x

_______________

2 Answer and Compulsory Counterclaims ad Ca elam, p. 9; Rollo, p. 192.

30 22 Phil. 42, February 27, 1912, per Johnson, J. The pronouncement in Worces er
was later reiterated in Perfec o . Con reras, 28 Phil. 538, December 2, 1914; Verso a
and R i , Reme ria Cia . Lim, 45 Phil. 416, November 15, 1923.

545

. 443, B 23, 2004 545

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

It ma be stated as a general rule that joint tort feasors are all the persons
who command, instigate, promote, encourage, advise, countenance,
cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who approve of it after
it is done, if done for their bene t. The are each liable as principals, to the
same extent and in the same manner as if the had performed the wrongful
act themselves. x x x
 Joint tort feasors are jointl and severall liable for the tort which the
commit. The persons injured ma sue all of them or an number less than
all. Each is liable for the whole damages caused b all, and all together are
jointl liable for the whole damage. It is no defense for one sued alone, that
the others who participated in the wrongful act are not joined with him as
defendants; nor is it an excuse for him that his participation in the tort was
insigni cant as compared to that of the others. x x x
Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not be
apportioned among them, except among themselves. The cannot insist
upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each pa ing an aliquot part. The
are jointl and severall liable for the whole amount. x x x
A pa ment in full for the damage done, b one of the joint tort feasors,
of course satis es an claim which might exist against the others. There can
be but satisfaction. The release of one of the joint tort feasors b agreement
generall operates to discharge all. x x x
Of course the court during trial ma nd that some of the alleged tort
feasors are liable and that others are not liable. The courts ma release some
for lack of evidence while condemning others of the alleged tort feasors.
And this is true even though the are charged jointl and severall .

In a join obliga ion, each obligor an er onl for a par of he

hole liabili ; in a olidar or join and e eral obliga ion, he
rela ion hip be een he ac i e and he pa i e bjec i o clo e
ha each of hem31m compl i h or demand he f l llmen of he
hole obliga ion. The fac ha

_______________

31 Paras, Ci il Code of he Philippines, Anno a ed, Vol. IV, 10th ed., pp. 215-216
(citing 8 Manresa 194), 216. See Article 1207 of the Civil Code, which de nes
solidary obligations as follows:

546

546 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

he liabili o gh again he CCC i for peci c performance and

or , hile ha o gh again he indi id al re ponden i ba ed
olel on or doe no nega e he olidar na re of heir liabili for
or o ac alleged in he co n erclaim . Ar icle 1211 of he Ci il
Code i e plici on hi poin :

Solidarit ma exist although the creditors and the debtors ma not be

bound in the same manner and b the same periods and conditions.

The olidar charac er of re ponden alleged liabili i preci el

h credence canno be gi en o pe i ioner a er ion. According o
ch a er ion, Re ponden CCC canno mo e o di mi he
co n erclaim
32 on gro nd ha per ain olel o i indi id al co-
deb or . In ca e led b he credi or, a olidar deb or ma in oke
defen e ari ing from he na re of he obliga ion, from
circ m ance per onal o i , or e en from ho e per onal o i co-
deb or . Ar icle 1222 of he Ci il Code pro ide :

_______________

T b a a
b a a a a a a , a a
a b , a a .T a a ab
b a a , a a b a
a .

32 The grounds raised by Respondent CCC in its Motion to Dismiss the

counterclaim solely pertain to Lim and Mariano:

a) Lim and Mariano were not parties to the original Complaint and cannot
therefore be impleaded in the counterclaim.
b) Lim and Mariano were mere of cials of CCC; their assailed acts, done by
virtue of a Board Resolution, were corporate acts for which they cannot be
made personally liable. (Motion to Dismiss dated December 29, 2001; Rollo,
pp. 220-225.

547

. 443, B 23, 2004 547

Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

A solidar debtor ma , in actions led b the creditor, avail itself of all

defenses which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those
which are personal to him, or pertain to his own share. With respect to those
which personally belong to the others, he may avail himself thereof only as
regards that part of the debt for which the latter are responsible.
(Emphasis supplied).

The ac of Re ponden CCC a a olidar deb or ha of ling a

mo ion o di mi he co n erclaim on gro nd ha per ain onl o
i indi id al co-deb or i herefore allo ed.
Ho e er, a per al of i Mo ion o Di mi he co n erclaim
ho ha Re ponden CCC led i on behalf of Core ponden Lim
and Mariano; i did no pra ha he co n erclaim again i be
di mi ed. Be ha a i ma , Re ponden CCC canno be declared in
defa l . J ri pr dence eache ha if he i e rai ed in he
comp l or co n erclaim are o in er ined i h he allega ion in33
he complain , ch i e are deemed a oma icall joined.
Co n erclaim ha are onl for damage and a orne fee and ha
ari e from he ling of he complain
34 hall be con idered a pecial
defen e and need no be an ered.

CCC M D C ca B a
R d L a d Ma a N A d
While Re ponden CCC can mo e o di mi he co n erclaim
again i b rai ing gro nd ha per ain o indi id al defendan
Lim and Mariano, i canno le he ame Mo ion on heir behalf for
he imple rea on ha i lack he req i i e a hori o do o. A
corpora ion ha a legal per onali en irel epara e and di inc
from ha of i of cer and canno ac for and on heir behalf,
i ho being o a hori ed. Th , nle e pre l adop ed b Lim
and Mariano, he

_______________

33 Gojo . Go ola, 35 SCRA 557, October 30, 1970.

34 Worces er . Loren ana, July 31, 1953.

54

548 C A A
Lafa ge Cemen Philippine , Inc. . Con inen al Cemen
Co po a ion

Mo ion o Di mi he comp l or co n erclaim led b Re ponden

CCC ha no force and effec a o hem.
In mmar , e make he follo ing prono ncemen :

1. The co n erclaim again Re ponden CCC, Gregor T.

Lim and An hon A. Mariano are comp l or .
2. The co n erclaim ma properl implead Re ponden
Gregor T. Lim and An hon A. Mariano, e en if bo h ere
no par ie in he original Complain .
3. Re ponden CCC or an of he hree olidar deb or (CCC,
Lim or Mariano) ma incl de, in a Mo ion o Di mi ,
defen e a ailable o heir co-defendan ; ne er hele , he
ame Mo ion canno be deemed o ha e been led on behalf
of he aid co-defendan .
4. S mmon m be er ed on Re ponden Lim and Mariano
before he rial co r can ob ain j ri dic ion o er hem.

WHEREFORE, he Pe i ion i GRANTED and he a ailed Order

REVERSED. The co r of origin i hereb ORDERED o ake
cogni ance of he co n erclaim pleaded in pe i ioner An er i h
Comp l or Co n erclaim and o ca e he er ice of mmon on
Re ponden Gregor T. Lim and An hon A. Mariano. No co .
SO ORDERED.

Sa d a -G , Ca -M a and Ga c a, JJ.,
conc r.
C a, J., On Lea e.

P a d, c d d a c a c
c ca a d d G T. L
a dA A. Ma a .
 No es. A comp l or co n erclaim i one hich ari e o of or
i nece aril connec ed i h he ran ac ion or occ rrence ha i
he bjec ma er of he oppo ing par claim.

54

. 443, B 24, 2004 549

Re: Re ol ion G an ing A oma ic Pe manen To al Di abili
Bene o Hei of J ice and J dge Who Die in Ac al Se ice

(F a c a B d C a . F b Pa A c a , I c.,
338 SCRA 346 [2000])
The econd paragraph of Sec ion 5 of R le 62 of he 1997 R le
of Ci il Proced re, hich pro ide ha he par ie in an in erpleader
ac ion ma le co n erclaim , cro -claim , hird par complain
and re pon i e pleading here o, a pro ided b he e R le , a
added o e pre l a hori e he addi ional pleading and claim
en mera ed herein, in he in ere of a comple e adj dica ion of he
con ro er and i inciden . (A a . D a , J ., 364 SCRA 88
[2001])

o0o

C g 2023 Ce a B S , I c. A g e e ed.