· 390 views · 2 pages

 0 ratings

Cabaero V Hon Cantos

Uploaded by jilliankad

case digest, law, cabaero v. hon cantos Full description

     
Save 0% 0% Embed Share Print

Download  Search document 

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTBaguio City

EN BANC

G.R. No. 102942 April 18, 1997

AMADO F. CABAERO a! CARMEN C. PERE", petitioners, vs.#ON. A$FREDO C. CANTOS i

%i& 'apa'i() a& Pr*&i!i+ -!+* o (%* R*+ioal Trial Co-r( o Maila, Br., /, a! EPFANO
CERA$DE, respondents.

PANGANBAN, J.:

Ca&* Na(-r* : SPECA! C"! AC#$N in the Supre%e Court. Certiorari.

Fa'(&

#his petition e%anated fro% Cri%. Case No. &'()**+ of the Regional #rial Court of -anila. Said
case co%%enced on $ctober )*, )&&', ith the filing of an nfor%ation against petitioners
charging the% ith estafa for allegedly defrauding private respondent Epifanio Ceralde of the su%
of P),//','''.''. Petitioners filed an Anser ith Counterclai%s alleging that the %oney loaned
fro% Solidban0 %entioned in the nfor%ation as duly applied to the purchase of the si1 parcels of
land in Pangasinan, and that the filing of said nfor%ation as un2ustified and %alicious.

&&-*&:

). 3hether or not pay%ent of filing fees is re4uired for court to ac4uire 2urisdiction over
counterclai%

+. 3hether or not anser ith counterclai% in a cri%inal case is proper

R-li+

). Pay%ent of filing fees is not re4uired.

nas%uch as the counterclai% is co%pulsory, there is no necessity to pay such fees, as the
Rules do not re4uire the%. 5oc0et fees are re4uired to be paid to enable the court to
ac4uire 2urisdiction only during the filing of the co%plaint or appropriate initiatory pleading,
as ell as during the filing of permissive counterclai%s.

+. #here is a valid counterclai% but the sa%e cannot be tried together ith the cri%inal case.

As categorically recogni6ed in the case of Javier, a clai% for %alicious prosecution or

7grossly unfounded suit7 as a co%pulsory counter(clai% has no appropriate venue other
than the sa%e cri%inal case hich is alleged to be a %alicious suit. #he filing of a separate
civil action for %alicious prosecution ould have resulted in the presentation of the sa%e
evidence involving si%ilar issues in to proceedings: the civil action i%pliedly instituted ith
the cri%inal action, and the separate civil action for da%ages for %alicious prosecution.

8oever, there are so%e reservations as regards the case of Javier. #he real proble% lies
in the absence of clear(cut rules governing the prosecution of i%pliedly instituted civil
actions and the necessary conse4uences and i%plications thereof. 9or this reason, the
counter(clai% of the accused cannot be tried together ith the cri%inal case because it ill
unnecessarily co%plicate and confuse the cri%inal proceedings. #hus, the trial court should
confine itself to the cri%inal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out
of the cri%e. #he counter(clai% and cross(clai% or third party co%plaint, if any; should be
Download
Copyright © 2023 Scribd Inc.