KINDS OF PLEADINGS
PROCEDURE IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
RULE 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Of course, we have met the term pleadings. Even in the
Constitution, it says: The SC shall have the power to
promulgate rules on pleadings, practice and procedure x x x.
Then, we also discussed jurisdiction over the issues. Subject
matter, person, res and issues.
Jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the
pleadings. So, what are pleadings?
Sec. 1. Pleadings defined. - Pleadings are the
written statements of the respective claims
and defenses of the parties submitted to the
court for appropriate judgment. (1a)
Pleadings are the documents that you file in court where
you state your position. So, if you are claiming, you state your
cause of action in writing. And that is what we call your pleading.
Ikaw naman, the defendant, you want also to state your side, you
want to out your defense, you also do it through pleadings.
So, that is where the parties will state their respective
positions. Actually, pleadings are the documents where a party
tells his story. If you are a plaintiff, meron kang reklamo sa
kalaban mo, you tell your story there. This is what happened. This
is what defendant did. so, I am asking the court to order him to do
this. Ikaw namang defendant, you also tell your story.
Pleadings are telling stories. Of course, the manner of
telling the story is in the correct legal manner. You do not say:
Once upon a time. Parang fairy tale. You tell your story in a legal
manner governed by legal documents and legal forms.
What are these pleadings under the law on Civil
Procedure? Ang counterpart niyan sa Criminal Procedure yung
complaint or information where the fiscal will say that he is
accusing you of a crime committed on this date against so and so
in the manner. But actually, in criminal procedure, there are no
such things as pleadings. Wala namang answer doon, eh. An
accused is not required to file a written answer in criminal cases.
But in civil cases, everything should be done in writing. So, what
are the pleadings allowed under the rules?
PLEADINGS the written allegations of the parties of their
respective claims and defenses submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
A motion to dismiss is NOT a pleading.
It is the allegations or averments in the pleading that determines the jurisdiction of
the court and the nature of the action.
PLEADING MOTION
It relates to the cause of action; An application for an order not
interested in the matters to be included in the judgment
included in the judgment.
May be initiatory Cannot be initiatory as they are
always made in a case already
filed in court
Always filed before judgment May be filed even after
judgment
Sec. 2. Pleadings allowed. - The claims of a party are asserted in
a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.)-
party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the
answer to the pleading asserting a claim against him.
An answer may be responded to by a reply.(n)
So, the pleadings under the rules are complaint,
counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) party complaint,
complaint-in-intervention, answer and reply. Now, if you are the
one claiming, ikaw ang naga-demanda, the correct pleading where
you will state your claim is either a complaint, counterclaim, cross-
claim or third (fourth, etc.) party complaint or complaint-in-
intervention. So, ano man ang mga ito? We will all of them under
this rule. Complaint-in-intervention will be discussed in Rule 19.
Section
Ikaw naman, you want to defend yourself, the defense of
a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim
against him. So, answer to complaint, answer to counterclaim,
answer to cross-claim, etc. So, ako complaint, ikaw, answer.
Ngayon, yung answer mo, gusto kong sagutin, ang tawag naman
ay reply. Answer will be responded to by a reply.
The Complaint
We will discuss the first pleading, the complaint. A
complaint is also called an initiatory pleading. Why?
ANSWER: Because that is the first pleading. Actually,
the plaintiff starts the ball rolling. A civil case cannot arise until the
plaintiff files a case in court. And since the first pleading is the
complaint, it is called initiatory. It will initiate the civil action. So,
what is a complaint?
Sec.3. Complaint. - The complaint is the pleading alleging the
plaintiffs cause or causes of action. The names and
residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in
the complaint. (3a)
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiffs
cause/s of action. Then, it must state the name, the residences of
the parties. A simple case to collect an unpaid loan. This is how it
is usually worded:
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, thru counsel respectfully alleges that:
1. Plaintiff A is of legal age, a resident of this street, Davao City
whereas defendant B is also of legal age and a resident of this
place.
2. On Nov. 5, 1996, defendant secured a loan from plaintiff in the
sum of P15,000 payable within one year from said date.
3. The account is already overdue but despite repeated demands,
defendant failed and refused and still fails and refuses to pay the
same.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against
the defendant ordering him to pay plaintiff the sum of P15,000.
Davao City, Philippines.
That is the complaint. So, in three paragraphs, you have
stated your cause of action and the elements are there. The right,
obligation, violation and the damage caused. Hindi kailangang
mahaba ang complaint. The shorter, the better.
So, with that, summons will be issued by the court, serve
a copy to the defendant. The defendant will have to answer the
complaint. You must prepare your defense by filing what is called
an answer.
The Answer
Sec. 4. Answer. - An answer is a pleading in which a
defending party sets forth his defenses. (4a)
Very short, no. So, the defendant sets forth his defenses
in the answer. That is why an answer is called a responsive
pleading. Why? it is the pleading responding to the complaint.
What are your possible defenses? I did not borrow money from
you. I never saw you. I don't even know your name. Or, yes, you
gave me money. Regalo man to, ba. Dili man to utang. Or even
still, bayad na. Hagbay rang nabayran. At least, you state that in
your answer. Or, that was already extinguished by condonation.
Di ba quits na yon? Or nag-prescribe na. Yan ang mga tinatawag
na defenses. You state that in your pleading and that is what is
called the answer.
Types of Defenses
The answer is the pleading where you state your
defenses. What are the types of defenses recognized under the
law? Sec. 5 says there are two types of defenses: Defenses may
either be negative or affirmative.
Sec. 5. Defenses - Defenses may either be negative or
affirmative.
109 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
a) A negative defense is the special denial of the material
fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant
essential to his cause or causes of action.
b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter
which, while hypothetically admitting the material
allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him. The
affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations,
release, payment, illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel,
former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
a] Negative defense or defense of specific denial
Briefly, a negative defense is called a defense of specific
denial. Plaintiff says defendant borrowed money from him and
defendant has still not paid him despite the fact that the loan is
already long overdue. Eto ngayon ang answer.
Defendant denies the allegation in the
complaint that he borrowed money from plaintiff in the
sum of P15,000, the truth of the matter being, defendant
has not received anything from plaintiff, he does not even
know plaintiff and has never met him in his life.
That is an example of a negative defense. Total denial,
ba. Meaning, what you are saying is untrue. A specific denial.
That is why a negative defense is called a defense of specific
denial.
b] Affirmative defense or defense of confession
and avoidance
An affirmative defense, on the other hand, is described
briefly as a defense of confession and avoidance. The term is
found in the last part of par. (b).
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may admit what
you are saying in your complaint. I borrowed money from you.
Admitted. The account is due. Admitted. I have not paid you.
Admitted. However, you cannot collect from me because the
account has already prescribed.
Meaning, I will admit what you are saying but just the
same, I am not liable. Kaya nga, you confess, eh. I confess to
what you say but I still avoid liability.
An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new
matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material
allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would
nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him.
Meaning, even if I admit what you are saying, still you
cannot recover from me.
Examples of affirmative defenses are:
Fraud, statute of limitations, release, payment, illegality,
statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in
bankruptcy, and any other matter by way of confession and
avoidance. That is why it is called a defense of confession and
avoidance.
Suppose, you sue me for damages arising from breach
of contract. I admit I entered into a contract but I have no
obligation to comply because the contract is null and void. The
contract is illegal. The stipulation is contrary to public policy,
therefore, I am not bound. I admit what you say but I am not liable
because if the illegality of the subject matter of the contract.
Or, you sue me because according to you I entered into
a contract and I refused to comply. So, you file a case against me
for specific performance or for damages. Then I say: Its true that
I entered into a contract with you. Its true I did not comply. But
there is nothing you can do because the contract is oral and the
contract is covered by the statute of frauds.
In order to be enforceable, we should have reduced it
into writing. Since we never reduced it into writing, I am not bound
to comply.
The Counterclaim
Let us go to the third pleading. Sec. 2 says the claims of
the party are asserted in a complaint, a counterclaim x x x. So,
what is a counterclaim?
Sec. 6. Counterclaim. - A counterclaim is any claim which a
defending party may have against an opposing party.
(6a)
Section
So, ganito yan. Plaintiff files a complaint against me for
damages arising from vehicular collision. The plaintiff will say in
his complaint: That on such and such a date, plaintiff is driving
his car carefully. Then all of a sudden, defendant comes,
driving his care recklessly, over-speeding, violation of all
traffic rules and bumped plaintiffs car. The damages
amounted to P200T. Usually, ganyan ang allegation. Ngayon, I
will answer. I deny that I am the one negligent. I was driving
carefully. You were the one who bumped my car, you were the
one reckless. Therefore, I am not liable for the damage to your
car. That is your own fault. Yan ang answer ko. Yan ang aking
depensa.
But I will not stop there. Sasabihin ko pa: As a matter
of fact, because you were the one negligent, my car is also
damage and the damage to my car is P300T. So, hindi ako ang
dapat magbayad sa iyo. Ikaw itong magbayad sa akin. So, I am
also claiming against you for the damage to my car.
So, you are filing a case against me claiming damages,
saying I was the one negligent. Ang depensa ko naman is you
were the one negligent, in fact, ikaw itong magbayad. so, claim din
ako. Balikan kita. That is what is called a counterclaim. May
demanda ka sa akin. May demanda din ako sa iyo. So, ang
tawag sa akin is counterclaimant.
Now, in a counterclaim, defendant becomes the plaintiff
and the plaintiff becomes the defendant.
Just to illustrate:
A files a case against B. That is the main complaint. In
the main action, A is the plaintiff, B is the defendant. Then, B files
an answer with a counterclaim. So, in a counterclaim, B is the
plaintiff and A is the defendant. So, baliktad. There are now two
cases to be tried. There are now two causes of action to be tried
in the same case. The main action of A against B and the
counterclaim of B against A.
If your complaint against me is P200T, will my
counterclaim be also limited to P200T? Or, you file a case against
me where your claim is P200T, my counterclaim is P1M. That is
allowed. There is no law which says that the counterclaim should
only be limited to the amount that the original plaintiff is claiming.
Meaning, I can assert a claim 5 times the amount you are claiming.
Well of course, what will be awarded by the court is another story.
But the point is puwede kitang balikan 5 times pa sa gina-claim mo
sa akin.
Now, when the main action is damages, kailangan ba
ang counterclaim ko damages din? Suppose, you file a case
against me for damages arising from a vehicular collision. File
naman ako ng counterclaim for recovery of a piece of land. Accion
publiciana ang balik, no? Ang main action damages, tapos ang
counterclaim, accion publiciana. Is that allowed. Yes, that is
allowed. Puwede. There is no provision in the rules which says
that if the main action is damages, the counterclaim should also be
damages.
Or for example:
You file a case against me for recovery of unpaid loan.
Ang counterclaim ko, rescission of partnership contract. Puwede?
ANSWER: Yes. Malayo, no? In other words, there is no
connection between what you are asking and what my answer is.
But what is important is tayong dalawa ang naglalaban. If you will
not allow me to file my counterclaim against you, that will be
another case in the future. Nandito na tayo so lahat ng ating
reklamo, we might as well have to finish it. That is allowed. So
you sue me, I sue you and I will sue you in the same case, ha. I
will not file another case. And I am called the counter-claimant.
DE BORJA vs. DE BORJA
101 PHIL 911
FACTS:
A died and X was appointed as administrator of the estate of A. X
filed an action against W who owes the estate of A to collect the unpaid loan. So
X, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of A, filed a case against W. W,
in turn, filed an answer with a counterclaim against X because it turned out that
W pala has a claim against X. The question that was asked in the bar was
whether the counterclaim was properly filed.
HELD:
The SC said that the counterclaim is improper because while any
counterclaim can be set up, the same must be available against the opposing
party in the very same capacity in which said party sues. Here, the opposing
party X sues as administrator. A counterclaim must be set up against him in that
same capacity. Why? X is not actually suing W in his personal capacity but as
legal representative of the estate of A. The real party is the estate of A so X is
just acting as representative so dapat ang counterclaim ni W against X is also in
his capacity as administrator. Pero yung counterclaim ni W kay X is in his
personal capacity. So, the counterclaim is improperly filed.
110 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
RECAP
So, we have already started with the study of pleadings,
the kinds of pleadings. Last night, we took up the following topics:
What do you understand by pleadings? That is Sec. 1. What are
these pleadings which are allowed by the rules? They are
mentioned in Sec. 2. Of course, the first pleading, the initiatory
pleading, is called the Complaint as defined in Sec. 3. And the
rule is when the defendant is served a copy of the complaint
together with the summons later, he must respond to the
complaint and the response there is called an Answer. That is
why an Answer is called a responsive pleading. That is where he
is supposed to state his defenses.
And then of course, under the rules of civil procedure,
what are the types of defenses? You have Sec. 5. And how do
you distinguish negative from affirmative defenses? They are
explained in Sec. 5. Then we have gone as far as Sec. 6, the
third pleading, Counterclaim.
A counterclaim is actually a counter complaint by the
defendant against the plaintiff in the same action. So, in the same
action where he is sued, the defendant is also suing the plaintiff.
So, who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant? Both of them
are plaintiffs and defendants at the same time. In the complaint,
you are the plaintiff, I am the defendant. In the counterclaim, I am
the plaintiff and you are the defendant.
Compulsory counterclaim
Sec. 7. Compulsory counterclaim. - A compulsory counterclaim is
one which being cognizable by the regular courts of
justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing
partys claim and does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the
jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the
nature thereof, except that in an original action before the
Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount. (n)
Now, based on Sec. 7, it tells us that actually there are
two types of counterclaims. What are they? They are called
compulsory counterclaim and the other type is permissive
counterclaim.
Compulsory vs. permissive counterclaim
When is a counterclaim compulsory? A counterclaim is
compulsory if it complies with the definition in Sec. 7. If it does not
comply with the definition in Sec. 7, then it is a permissive
counterclaim. What are the elements of a compulsory
counterclaim? How do we know whether a counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive? Based on Sec. 7, the elements of a
counterclaim to be compulsory must conform to the following
conditions:
Compusory counterclaim, requisites
1) It must be cognizable by the regular court of justice;
2) It arises out of or is connected with the transaction or
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing partys claim;
3) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of
third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction; and
4) It must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to
the amount and the nature thereof except that in an
original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
5) A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a
defending party has at the time he files his answer shall
be contained therein.
The fifth requisite is not found in Sec. 7. It is actually
found in Rule 11, Sec. 8 which provides:
Sec.8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. - A compulsory
counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at
the time he files his answer shall be contained therein. (8a,
R6)
In other words, for a counterclaim to be compulsory, the
defending party who is asserting it has a counterclaim at the time
he files his answer. Meaning, the counterclaim already matured
before the answer. That is the last requisite. The counterclaim is
already existing or has already matured at the time he files his
answer.
Section
Now, you remove anyone of the five requisites, the
counterclaim becomes permissive. We will go to these requisites
one by one.
1) It must be cognizable by the regular
courts of justice;
Therefore, you file a case against me which is
cognizable by the regular court. If my counterclaim against you is
a labor case arising out of the labor code which is cognizable by
the NLRC, then I cannot make a compulsory counterclaim.
Because I cannot file a labor case in court. That is not cognizable.
So, it can never be a compulsory counterclaim. This requisite is
not found under the 64 Rules. That is not mentioned at all but that
is common sense. A counterclaim to be compulsory must be
cognizable by the regular court of justice. Of course, not
cognizable by the SEC, by the NLRC or any other administrative
body.
The second requisite is the most important.
2. It arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing partys
claim.
Meaning, the counterclaim arose out of the subject
matter of the complaint. You have a complaint against me. Ang
counterclaim ko is also related to your case against me. So, it
arises out of or is necessarily connected with the subject matter of
the main action or opposing partys claim. Let us go to specific
examples.
(1) Suppose, you will file a case against me for damages
arising out of a vehicular collision. That my vehicle bumped your
vehicle because of my negligence causing damages to your
vehicle. So you want hold me liable for those damages. In my
answer, I denied negligence. I said you were the one being
negligent. And now here is my counterclaim: As a matter of fact,
because you were the one negligent, my vehicle is damaged, you
should be the one to pay for the damages sustained by my car. Is
my counterclaim arising out of the subject matter of your
action or not?
ANSWER: Yes. We are talking of the same accident,
the same banggaan. You are talking of an accident where your car
was damaged. That is the subject matter of your action. Ako
naman, I say you should be the one to pay me for the damage to
my car. In other words, my counterclaim arose out of the same
incident. So, the counterclaim is compulsory.
(2) You file a case against me for recovery of
possession of a piece of land, accion publiciana. Of course, I will
have to file an answer. Sabi ko, actually I introduced necessary
improvements on the land. Or, I have incurred necessary
expenses on the land. You should also reimburse me for the
expenses incurred for preserving your land. Will you say that my
counterclaim arose out of the same subject matter of your main
action? Yes, because we are talking of the same land. So, it is a
compulsory counterclaim.
(3) You file a case against me to claim damages arising
from a vehicular collision. In my answer with counterclaim, I say
you return to me the land which you took from me. Would you say
that my counterclaim arose out of the same subject matter of your
action? No. There is no connection, di ba? You are talking about
a vehicular collision and I am talking about recovery of a piece of
land. So, since the counterclaim did not arise out of or is not
necessarily connected with the same subject matter of the main
action, the counterclaim must be permissive.
Compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim
if not set up, barred
So, those are some examples. Now, before we continue
further, what is the importance in determining whether a
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive? Well as the term
implies in a compulsory counterclaim, the counterclaim is
compulsory. If permissive, the counterclaim is allowed but not
compulsory.
Now, under the rules, the effect of a compulsory
counterclaim is that a defendant is obliged to claim the
counterclaim in the same action. He cannot file a separate case
for the purpose of claiming from the plaintiff. It must be invoked in
the same action. If not invoked in the same action, the
counterclaim is barred forever.
But if the counterclaim is permissive, the defendant has
a choice of claiming it in the same case where he is sued or he
may not file a counterclaim against the plaintiff but later on he will
111 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
file another case against the plaintiff. That is why it is called
permissive. You are permitted to invoke it as a counterclaim but if
you do not want to, you can file another case against the plaintiff
later.
Where do you find that principle that a counterclaim
which is compulsory must be raised or claimed in the same case
where he is being sued otherwise he is barred forever? That is
found in Rule 9, Sec. 2:
Sec.2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up
barred. - A compulsory counter-claim or a cross-claim, not
set up shall be barred. (4a)
But if the counterclaim is permissive, even if it is not set
up as a counterclaim, it is not barred. So, let us go back to our
example.
(1) You file a case against me to claim damages
because of the collision. My car was also damaged in that same
collision. My defense is wala akong kasalanan. You are the one at
fault. But I did not claim against you. Meaning, I just defended
myself. After trial sabi ng court the defendant is not the one at
fault. It was the plaintiff.
So, the complaint of plaintiff was dismissed. So, since
dismissed na, ngayon, balikan kita. Idemanda kita ngayon to
recover the damages because I am not liable to you pala. You are
the one liable to me so I will file to recover damages against you.
In that case, plaintiff will move to dismiss my counterclaim. Why?
Bakit hindi mo yan hiningi noon? Dapat noon pa sa first case. You
cannot file another case to claim that. It must be set up because it
is a compulsory counterclaim. Kaya nga compulsory, eh. You are
obliged to set it up in the first action.
(2) I will file a case against you to recover a piece of
land. After trial, you lost. So the court said you have to return the
land to me. After that, you file a case against me to reimburse me
for the necessary expenses I incurred on the land. If you do that, I
will move to dismiss the case. You cannot file another case. You
should have claimed that in the case I filed against you earlier.
You are obliged under the law to raise it as a counterclaim. If you
fail to do it under Rule 9, Sec. 2, you cannot claim your
improvements forever. Barred ka na. That is the effect of a
compulsory counterclaim.
On the other hand, if the counterclaim is permissive
because it did not arise out of or is not connected with the subject
matter of the action, what are the options of a counter-claimant?
(3) You file a case against me for recovery of land and
my claim against you is damages due to vehicular collision. So,
the counterclaim is permissive. What are my options? You file a
case against me for recovery of land, I will also file a counterclaim
for damages arising from vehicular collision. Meaning, we will
settle this in one case. Puwede yan. Pero I can also say mag-file
ako ng ibang kaso. Meaning, I will not invoke it in the recovery of
land case you filed against me but I will instead file another case
against you for damages. Is that allowed? Puwede rin. Kaya nga
permissive, eh. It can be invoked as a counterclaim if you want it.
If not, you can file another case. That is the importance between a
compulsory counterclaim and permissive counterclaim.
Now, as I said, among the requisites of a compulsory
counterclaim, that is the most important and the most pivotal. That
the counterclaim arises out of or is connected with the transaction
or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing
partys claim. That is the most important element. That is the
number one test. To borrow the language of the SC in the 1992
case of:
MELETON vs. CA
216 SCRA 485
HELD:
It has been postulated that while a number of criteria have been
advanced for the determination of whether a counterclaim is compulsory or
permissive, the one compelling test of compulsoriness is the logical relationship
between the claim alleged in the complaint and that in a counterclaim. That is
where conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would
entail a substantial duplication of effort and time as where they involve many of
the same factual and/or legal issues.
Meaning, there is a logical relationship if the evidence
that I would submit to prove is practically identical with the
evidence to be submitted in the first case.
What is the third requisite of a compulsory
counterclaim?
Section
3) It does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Meaning, it does not involve any indispensable party
over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Because if there
is an indispensable party and there is no way for the court to
acquire jurisdiction, then the claim is not compulsory.
How can it be decided by the court when there is a
missing person involved in the counterclaim?
4) That a counterclaim must be within the
jurisdiction of the court both as to the
amount and the nature thereof except that
in an original action before the RTC, the
counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.
A counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court
both as to the amount and the nature thereof. Look at these
examples:
EXAMPLE 1:
A files a case against B for forcible entry. Meaning, B
entered the land of A and took possession. So, ang court which
has jurisdiction is MTC. B also claims that he introduced
improvements into the land amounting to P200T. So, he is asking
A to reimburse him for those improvements.
Under the law on property, when it comes to necessary
expenses, even a possessor in bad faith is entitled to
reimbursement. So, even a squatter, like B can claim for
reimbursement. So, A files a case against B for forcible entry and
B files a case against A for reimbursement of the necessary
expenses amounting to P200T which is cognizable by the RTC. Is
the counterclaim compulsory or permissive? ANSWER: It is
permissive because while the counterclaim is necessarily
connected to the subject matter of the action but another element
is missing. The counterclaim is beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Therefore, the MTC cannot grant relief even it arose out
of the same transaction.
Exception to Requisite No. 4
But there is an exception. Except that in an original
action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered
compulsory regardless of the amount.
So, in an original action before the RTC. My problem
earlier was an original action before the MTC. Let us draft a
problem which will cover the exception.
EXAMPLE 2:
A files a case against B for recovery of possession of a
piece of land, accion publiciana where the value of the land is over
P20T. Where will I file the case? RTC. B, the defendant, now files
a counterclaim against A. You have to reimburse me for the
necessary expenses that I incurred in preserving the land which
expenses amount to P50T. Can the RTC grant the relief of P50T
in the counterclaim of B?
ANSWER: Yes. But the RTCs jurisdiction in money
claim is over P100T and the claim of B is only P50T. Kahit na, no.
So, if the original action is before the RTC, the counterclaim may
be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
Meaning, if the original action is in the RTC and the
amount to be recovered is below P100T which is cognizable in the
MTC, the RTC can still entertain the counterclaim. What is the
principle here?
ANSWER: The principle here is if the main action is
triable in the RTC, the counterclaim becomes only ancillary or
incidental to the main action and jurisdiction over the main action
automatically carries with it jurisdiction of the incidental or ancillary
action.
But kung baliktad, the main action is forcible entry,
triable in the MTC, and the counterclaim is P100T for necessary
expenses triable in the RTC, this time the MTC cannot act on the
counterclaim because it has no jurisdiction. It does not fall under
the exception. In other words, if your counterclaim is higher than
the main action, it cannot be incidental. Now, where did that
exception came from? That exception was not found in the
previous rules. However, it was laid down by decided cases. The
rule now and the rule before are actually the same.
The rule before July 1, 1997 was that if the main action
is accion publiciana in the RTC and the defendant is claiming for
reimbursement of P30T lang, the RTC can entertain the
counterclaim. If the counterclaim is compulsory because it arises
out of the same transaction, jurisdiction over the main action
automatically carries with jurisdiction over the ancillary action.
Pero kung baliktad, the main action is forcible entry and the
counterclaim for reimbursement is more than P100T, then you
112 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
cannot say it is incidental. The MTC cannot entertain the
counterclaim because it beyond its jurisdiction. That is still the law
now kaya nga nilagay na sa Rules. It was laid down by the SC
and it is now incorporated in the 1997 Rules.
Well of course, the last requisite is found in Rule 11,
Sec. 8.
5) A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-
claim that a defending party has at the
time he files his answer shall be
contained therein.
The counterclaim must have matured before answer.
Meaning, when I file my answer, the counterclaim is already
existing, therefore, I could have filed my counterclaim together with
my answer. But if that counterclaim is not yet in existence, then
you cannot compel me to file it. How can I file something which is
not yet existing? If it is a counterclaim that matured later, then it is
not a compulsory counterclaim.
Those are the important points to remember whether a
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive. What is the distinction
between the two? What is the importance of knowing their
distinctions? That is Rule 9, Sec. 2. A compulsory counterclaim
not set up shall be barred forever.
Counterclaim in criminal cases
Javier Ruling
Now we will go to some interesting cases. The first case
is related to the subject of Criminal Procedure. A controversial and
the first of its kind, the case of:
JAVIER vs. IAC
171 SCRA 605 (1989)
FACTS:
It all started with a criminal case filed in Makati. The spouses
Reynaldo and Estelita Javier filed a criminal case against Leon Gutierrez, Jr.
under BP 22, the bouncing check law for issuing a bad check. So, Gutierrez
issued a check which bounced for insufficient funds. The case was filed before
the RTC of Makati. The Javiers did not reserve the filing of a separate civil
action. So, in Criminal Procedure, the implication is that the civil action for the
recovery of the amount of the check is deemed instituted in the criminal action.
Gutierrez, in turn, filed a civil case for damages against the Javiers
in the RTC of Catarman, Northern Samar. Sabi ng accused hes holding the
Javiers liable for damages because he claims that he was tricked into signing
the check that he issued for which he is now being sued. So, actually, he is
explaining in the Samar court the reason why he issued the check for which he
is facing a case in Makati. So, a criminal action is filed against the accused in
Makati and the accused, in turn, filed a civil case against the spouses in Samar.
HELD:
The SC said the civil case in Samar should be dismissed. Why? It
was before the Makati court that Gutierrez as accused in a criminal charge of
violation of BP 22 could explain why he issued the bouncing check. Why are
you explaining the issuance of the bouncing check in Samar instead of
explaining it in Makati? Sabi ng accused: I was tricked. Niloko nila ako. Sabi
ng SC: If that is so, then you explain that and you can do this in a form of
counterclaim for damages for your alleged deception by the Javier spouses.
Therefore, you can file a counterclaim for damages. Where will you file the
counterclaim for damages? Well, since the civil action for the recovery of the
check is found in the criminal action, you can file your counterclaim for damages
also in the criminal case because the claim of the spouses for civil liability is
deemed instituted in the criminal action.
So, it was for the first time in the history of procedure
where the SC in the case of JAVIER ruled that there is such a
thing as counterclaim for damages by the accused to be invoked in
a criminal case. Because, as we know, counterclaims are only
invoked in civil cases. And yet, in JAVIER sabi ng SC, anyway
since the civil case against you is also being claimed in the
criminal case for violation of BP 22 and since there is no
reservation to file a separate civil action, then you explain in the
criminal case. And if you also want to hold them liable for
damages, you can do so by way of counterclaim.
So, for the first time, as I said in the history of civil
procedure and also in criminal procedure, in the case of JAVIER,
the SC said a counterclaim is allowed in criminal cases.
There is no other case na sumunod sa JAVIER. And
many people criticized the ruling in the case of JAVIER. Bakit?
Wala namang nakalagay sa Rules na counterclaim in criminal
cases. So, what rules shall we apply? Even authors and
professors of Remedial Law seemed to have asked the SC on the
counterclaim in criminal case. Some justices nga, when they
Section
reflected on the case of JAVIER remarked: Nabigla kami, ba.
Because the case of JAVIER spawned a lot of problems.
If a counterclaim is possible in a criminal case, a lot of
problems piled up. Even the SC cannot answer those questions.
So, this year a second case came up to the SC on the issue on
counterclaim in criminal cases. The case which is very recent and
not yet reported in the SCRA is the case of:
CABAERO vs. CANTOS
April 18, 1997
HELD:
The SC had to study the case of JAVIER again. This time, en banc
ang SC. Justice Artemio Panganiban, being the spokesman of the SC said:
Mukhang mahirap. So, from now on, JAVIER should go to sleep. The ruling in
JAVIER should be forgotten in the meantime until we can revise the Rules of
Court further. In the absence of specific rules, there will be confusion. In the
meantime, the ruling in JAVIER should be set aside. So, in the case of Cabaero
vs. Cantos, is there such a thing as counterclaim in criminal cases? In the
meantime, wala. Forget it, said the SC. Forget what we said in JAVIER.
Actually the SC did not say that the ruling in JAVIER is bad or
illogical. No, kaya lang how to implement it is a big problem because there are
no specific rules for counterclaim in criminal cases. Said the SC: The logic of
and mordancy(?) notwithstanding, some reservations and concerns were voiced
out by members of the court during the deliberations of the present case. These
were engendered by the obvious lacuna (meaning void) in the rules of court
which contains no express provisions for the adjudication of a counterclaim in a
civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal case.
There is nothing wrong with the ruling. The real problem lies in the
absence of clear cut rules governing the prosecution of impliedly instituted civil
actions and the necessary consequences and implications thereof. For this
reason, the counterclaim of the accused cannot be tried together with the
criminal case because it will unnecessarily complicate and confuse the criminal
proceeding. Thus, the trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and
the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. The
counterclaim should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to
their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time. Until there are definitive
rules of procedure to govern the institution, prosecution and resolution of the
civil aspect, and the consequences and the implications thereof impliedly
instituted in a criminal case, trial courts should limit their jurisdiction to the civil
liability of the accused arising from the criminal case.
That is now a rejection of the JAVIER ruling. Yun ngang
civil liability arising from the criminal case samok na nga, di ba?
Remember, there is a lot of complication there? Meaning, the
rules on procedure are already complicated. Should the civil case
be deemed instituted? Or should you file a separate civil action?
Look at Rule 111. Di ba magulo na yon? Yan ang present balaod.
Pasabugon pa nimo. Ay purbida. That is what the SC is saying.
Let us not confuse it further. So, whatever we said in JAVIER,
forget it. So, watch out for this case paglabas sa SCRA.
RECAP
Last night, we concentrated on Sec. 7 which is a very
important provision of the rules. So, let us try to review.
Under the rules, there are two types of counterclaim:
compulsory counterclaim and permissive counterclaim. When is
a counterclaim compulsory? What are the requirements or
requisites? The requisites are found in Sec. 7 and also one
requisite is actually mentioned in Rule 11, Sec. 8. It must already
be in existence. It must be a matured cause of action. At the time
you file the answer, the counterclaim is already available.
Meaning, you could have raised it in your answer. If
you remove any of these requisites, the counterclaim becomes
permissive. And what is the most important requisite of
counterclaim? Whether the counterclaim arises out of or is
connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing partys claim. That is the most
important of all the requisites.
And what is the rule when the counterclaim is
compulsory? The defendant is compelled to invoke it against
the plaintiff in the same case that he is being sued as a
defendant. It cannot be the subject matter of a separate action in
the future that he will file against the defendant. He must invoke it
as a counterclaim. It cannot be the subject matter of another
complaint in the future because of Rule 9, Sec. 2. A compulsory
counterclaim, if not set up, is barred forever. Then I gave you
examples.
If a counterclaim is permissive, the defendant has two
choices. Either (1) to invoke it as a counterclaim in the case
where he is being sued by the plaintiff, or (2) he can file a
separate action against the plaintiff. He will file another
complaint.
113 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
And then, one of the requirements of a compulsory
counterclaim is that the counterclaim must be within the
jurisdiction of the court trying the main action. That is why we
said, if the action is triable by the MTC, and the counterclaim is
triable by the RTC, it cannot be invoked as a counterclaim
because it is beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC. But suppose the
main action is triable by the RTC and the counterclaim is triable
by the MTC, this time, can the RTC take cognizance of the
counterclaim?
ANSWER: Yes, because of the exception. Except that
in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory regardless of the amount. That is
taken from decided cases, no. The reason there is that the
compulsory counterclaim is merely incidental to the main action.
If the court has jurisdiction over the main action, automatically, it
has jurisdiction over the ancillary action which is the counterclaim.
We have gone as far as that provision.
BAR QUESTION (1998)
A, a resident of Lingayen, Pangasinan sued X, a resident of San
Fernando La Union in the RTC (RTC) of Quezon City for the collection of a debt
of P1 million. X did not file a motion to dismiss for improper venue but filed his
answer raising therein improper venue as an affirmative defense. He also filed a
counterclaim for P80,000 against A for attorney's fees and expenses for litigation.
X moved for a preliminary hearing on said affirmative defense. For his part, A filed
a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.
1.) Rule on the affirmative defense of improper venue. [3%]
2.) Rule on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. There is improper venue. The case for a sum of money, which
was filed in Quezon City, is a personal action. It must be filed in the residence of
either the plaintiff, which is in Pangasinan, or of the defendant, which is in San
Fernando, La Union. (Sec. 2 of Rule 4) The fact that it was not raised in a motion
to dismiss does not matter because the rule that if improper venue is not raised in
a motion to dismiss it is deemed waived was removed from the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The new Rules provide that if no motion to dismiss has been filed,
any of the grounds for dismissal may be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the
answer. (Sec. 6 of Rule 16.)
2. The motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter should be denied. The counterclaim for attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation is a compulsory counterclaim because it necessarily arose
out of and is connected with the complaint. In an original action before the RTC,
the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. (Sec.
7 of Rule 6)
BAR QUESTION 2004:
PX filed a suit for damages against DY. In his answer, DY incorporated a
counterclaim for damages against PX and AC, counsel for plaintiff in said suit,
alleging in said counterclaim, inter alia, that AC, as such counsel, maliciously
induced PX to bring the suit against DY despite AC's knowledge of its utter lack of
factual and legal basis. In due time, AC filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim
as against him on the ground that he is not a proper party to the case, he being
merely plaintiffs counsel. Is the counterclaim of DY compulsory or not? Should
AC's motion to dismiss the counterclaim be granted or not? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The counterclaim of DY is compulsory because it is one which
arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction.(Sec. 7 of Rule 6).
The motion to dismiss of plaintiffs counsel should not be granted
because bringing in plaintiffs counsel as a defendant in the counterclaim is
authorized by the Rules. Where it is required for the grant of complete relief in the
determination of the counterclaim, the court shall order the defendant's counsel to
be brought in since jurisdiction over him can be obtained. (Sec. 12 of Rule 6;
Aurelio v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 674 [1994]). Here, the counterclaim was
against both the plaintiff and his lawyer who allegedly maliciously induced the
plaintiff to file the suit.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The counterclaim should be dismissed because it is not a
compulsory counterclaim. When a lawyer files a case for a client, he should not
be sued on a counterclaim in the very same case he has filed as counsel. It
should be filed in a separate and distinct civil action. (Chavez v. Sandiganbayan,
193 SCRA 282 [1991])
Section
The Cross-claim
So, we have taken up Complaint, Answer, Counterclaim.
We will now go to the fourth pleading - the Cross-claim under Sec.
8.
Sec. 8. Cross-claim. - A cross-claim is any claim by one party
against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action
or of a counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may
include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted
is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a
claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant. (7)
Yes, a cross-claim is any claim by one party against a
co-party. For example, a defendant against his co-defendant.
Unlike a counterclaim which is a claim by the defendant against
the plaintiff.
Illustrate how a cross-claim looks like:
A and B secured a loan from plaintiff X the sum of P200T
where A and B made themselves jointly and severally liable to X.
Actually, the loan was obtained by B and A only agreed to sign the
promissory note to accommodate B.
Parang surety, ba. That is what you call an
accommodation party. Meron mang ganyan, ba. Si X, hindi niya
kilala si B. Pero A will also sign the note. So sabi ni X, okay.
Because anyway, X knows A. Mayaman yan, eh. So, sign si A.
But in reality, not a single centavo went to A.
When the note fell due and B failed to pay X, X sued A
and B. Of course, each one has to file his answer. But as far as A
is concerned, sabi niya, I cant be liable for a loan which I haven t
got to enjoy a single centavo. Everything went to B. So what will A
do? He will also ask in the same case that in the event that he will
be held liable to X and A is compelled to pay the loan to X, B
should also reimburse him (A) for the amount that he will pay X.
So, A will also claim against B and that claim is called a
cross-claim. A defendant claiming also against his co-defendant. A
party against his co-party. And what do you call A in the cross-
claim? He is called the cross-claimant. And what do you call B?
ANSWER: He is called the cross-defendant. So, in the
main action, X is the plaintiff, A and B are the defendants. But in
the cross-claim, defendant A becomes the cross-claimant and
defendant B becomes the cross-defendant.
Cross-claim vs. counterclaim
Now, take note that the requirement of a cross-claim is
that the cross-claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of the original action. Now here, is the cross-
claim of A against B related? Does it arise out of the claim of X
against A and B?
ANSWER: Yes, because X is filing a case against A and
B based on the promissory note and As cross-claim is also based
on the same promissory note.
But in a counterclaim, iba ano? A counterclaim may or
may not arise out of the transaction or occurrence. Di ba in a
counterclaim, you sue me for recovery of land, my counterclaim is
damages arising from vehicular collision.
So, there is no connection between the complaint and
the counterclaim. Is that allowed?
ANSWER: That is allowed in Sec. 6. As a matter of fact,
if it is arising out of the same transaction, it becomes a compulsory
counterclaim. If it does not arise out of the same transaction, it
becomes a permissive counterclaim.
But here, for example, X filed a case against A and B to
collect a loan on the promissory note. Sabi ni A, di ba binangga
mo man ang kotse ko last week? Nandito naman tayo, so I might
as well file a cross-claim against you. Is that proper?
ANSWER: That is an improper cross-claim because the
requirement of a cross-claim is that a cross-claim must arise out of
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
original action.
And the law says x x x transaction or occurrence that
is the subject nattier either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein. So a cross-claim can arise also out of a
counterclaim.
And the best example would be:
A and B, plaintiffs, filed a case against X. So, two
plaintiffs suing X. X filed his answer with a counterclaim against
both of them. Now, because of the counterclaim, A and B will now
become defendants. Can A file a cross-claim against B arising
out of the counterclaim?
ANSWER: Yes. So, here is the plaintiff filing a cross-
claim against his co-plaintiff because of the counterclaim.
114 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Remember in the counterclaim, A and B are the
defendants. Thats why the law says transaction or occurrence
that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein.
So, let us think of a hypothetical example.
1) A and B, co-plaintiffs, sued X and Y, co-defendants. So, there
are two plaintiffs and two defendants. And we will assume that
the complaint is collection of an unpaid loan. So, there are two
solidary creditors collecting against two solidary debtors.
COMPLAINT
Main Action (Collection case)
A and B, co-plaintiffs
vs.
X and Y co-defendants
2) Now, can X file a cross-claim against Y arising out of the main
case? Yes, puwede, for reimbursement. X did not enjoy a
single centavo from the loan. The loan actually all went to Y.
So, X files a cross-claim against Y arising from the unpaid loan
from A and B.
CROSS-CLAIM
X, cross-claimant
vs.
Y, cross-defendant
3) But sabi ni X: But both of you (A and B) occupied also my land
so Im suing you for damages. So, X files a counterclaim for
damages arising from the occupation of his land.
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant X, now plaintiff
vs.
Plaintiffs A and B, now co-defendants
4) So, A will have to answer naman the counterclaim. Sasabihin
niya: Actually the damages was not caused by me but B. So,
cross-claim naman siya kay B arising out of the counterclaim
of X.
CROSS-CLAIM OF COUNTERCLAIM
A vs. B
5) On the other hand, si Y naman has to answer to the complaint
(collection). But he says: Yung kotse ni B binangga yung
kotse ko noong isang buwan. So file naman siya ng
counterclaim against B.
COUNTERCLAIM
arising from vehicular collision
Y vs. A and B
6) Sabi naman ni B: But the real owner of the car is A. So, file
siya ng cross-claim against A.
CROSS-CLAIM OF COUNTERCLAIM
arising from claim of Y
B vs. A
Are all these possible?
ANSWER: Yes. All these things are possible in civil
cases. So, bilangin mo, ilan yan? So, there are now 6 cases to be
tried in court. And all of these have to be threshed out. So, in one
action bakbakan na tayo dito. I have not seen that kind of situation
yet but that is possible. The rules allow it. So, what is the reason
behind that? The SC said: The evident purpose of the rules is to
avoid multiplicity of suits. And toward this end, the rules allow and
in certain cases compel, as in compulsory counterclaims, to
combine in one litigation their conflicting claims more particularly
when they arise out of the same transaction because it becomes
compulsory.
So, in effect how do you distinguish a cross-claim from a
counterclaim?
Section
There are two main distinctions between a counterclaim
and a cross-claim:
1. A counterclaim is a complaint by the defendant against the
plaintiff whereas a cross-claim is a claim by the defendant
against his co-defendant.
2. A counterclaim may be asserted whether or not it arises
out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter of the action whereas a cross-claim must always
arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the action or of a counterclaim.
Otherwise if it does not, it is not even a proper cross-
claim.
Effect of cross-claim or counterclaim
where main action is dismissed
Here is another situation.
Suppose, X files a case against A and B to collect an
unpaid loan. A files a cross-claim against B alleging that every
centavo went to B. Afterwards, the complaint of X against A and B
is dismissed. Can the cross-claim of A and B remain pending
when the main complaint is already dismissed or terminated?
ANSWER: The SC said no, because the life of the
cross-claim depends on the life of the complaint. When the
complaint is dismissed, the cross-claim has no more reason to
exist.
Like for example, the complaint of X is dismissed. So,
wala ng habol si X sa loan. Ano pa ang habol ni A kay B na isauli
mo sa kanya na daog man sila against X?
In other words, when the complaint is dismissed, the
cross-claim is necessarily dismissed.
Unlike in a counterclaim, if you sue me for damages out
of a vehicular collision and my counterclaim is also arising out of
the same vehicular collision, pagna-dismiss yung sa iyo, maiwan
yung sa akin. O, di ikaw yung magbayad sa akin. Or, you file a
case against me for an unpaid loan. Ang counterclaim ko sa iyo
isauli mo ang lupa ko. Recovery of possession. If your complaint
is dismissed, buhay ang counterclaim ko. Tuloy ang laban.
But in a cross-claim, once the complaint is terminated,
the cross-claim is automatically terminated.
The SC emphasized that in the 1992 case of:
RUIZ JR. vs. CA
212 SCRA 660
HELD:
The SC said: A cross-claim could not be the subject of an
independent adjudication. Once it loses the nexus upon which its life depended,
the cross-claimant cannot claim more rights than the plaintiff himself on whose
cause of action the cross-claim depended. The dismissal of the complaint
divested the cross-claimant of whatever interest he might have had before and
also made the cross-claim itself no longer viable.
So, the umbilical cord or the nexus of the cross-claim is
the main action. If the main action disappears, the cross-claim is
automatically dead. What is there to reimburse when I did not pay
anything? Yan. So, we have to remember all these principles.
Counter counterclaim and Counter cross-claim
Sec.9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims.- A
counterclaim may be asserted against an original
counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an
original cross-claimant.
If you will notice, that is a new provision. There is no
such provision in the 64 Rules. So, for the first time, the Rules of
Court recognizes the concept of a counter-counterclaim. Or a
counterclaim to a counterclaim. Counter-counterclaim. And
counter-cross-claim.
So, you can file a counterclaim against the original
counter-claimant. And if you are the cross-defendant, you can file
also a counter cross-claim against the cross-claimant. Lalong
nagulo no? Actually, even before the new Rules of Court was
enacted, this was already asked in the bar. Is there such a thing
as counterclaim to the counterclaim? Tinanong na yan before.
The rules call this now as counter-counterclaim. And of course,
the answer is yes sabi ng SC. You can file a counterclaim to the
counterclaim.
115 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
I will file a case against you to recover an unpaid loan.
You file a counterclaim against me for recovery of possession of a
piece of land. And I said you have no cause of action. As a matter
of fact, you have been harassing me with your claim. So, balikan
kita. Injunction to stop you from harassing me from my
possession.
So, in effect my counterclaim against you arose out of
your counterclaim against me. That is what you call counterclaim
to the counterclaim which the new rules call counter-counterclaim.
Its a new provision but it is actually taken from decided cases.
The Reply
So, how many pleadings have we discussed?
Complaint, answer, counterclaim, cross-claim. Apat na. We will
now go to the fifth, the concept of reply, Sec. 10.
Sec. 10. Reply. - A reply is a pleading the office or function of
which is to deny or allege facts in denial or avoidance
of new matters alleged by way of defense in the
answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new
matters. If a party does not file such reply, all the new
matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted.
If the plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims
arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims
shall be set forth in an amended or supplemental
complaint. (11)
Let us try to recall the previous sections. I will file a
complaint against you. What is your responsive pleading to the
complaint? That is called an Answer. Now in your answer, you
invoked new matters. That is what you call affirmative defenses.
Like for example, you invoke the affirmative defense of prescription
or statute of frauds. Or whatever it is which I already mentioned in
the previous sections. If I want to respond to your defenses, where
yung mga defenses mo are actually baseless, am I entitled to file a
pleading? Sagutin ko yang mga depensa mo? I am the plaintiff,
ibalik mo sa a akin ba. Yes. And what is that pleading where I
have to deny or comment on your affirmative defenses? It is called
the Reply.
So what do you call a reply? It is also a responsive
pleading. Why? It is actually a response to the affirmative
defenses alleged in defendants answer. So, try to picture. File ka
ng kaso sa akin - complaint. Sagutin kita - answer. Gusto mong
sagutin ang sagot ko - reply. Yan. Thats the pattern no.
Complaint, answer, reply.
Eh, halimbawa, ako ang defendant at gusto ko pa ring
sagutin ang reply. Meaning, I will comment on what you said in
your reply. What is the next pleading?
ANSWER: No more. That is the last pleading.
Otherwise, walang katapusan. Sagutan na lang tayo habang
buhay. So, in other words, complaint, answer, reply. That is the
end.
Filing of Reply optional
Now, what happens if the plaintiff fails to file a reply?
Meaning, I will file a complaint against you, you file an answer
claiming prescription, statute of frauds, etc., hindi ko naman
sinagot. I never commented on your answer.
Meaning, I did not file a reply. Will it prejudice me as the
plaintiff? Meaning, by failing to file a reply, are all the defenses
raised in the answer deemed admitted by the plaintiff? The
answer is No, because the law says: If a party does not file such
reply all the new matters alleged in the answer are deemed
controverted. Anong ibig sabihin niyan?
If the plaintiff does not file a reply, all the affirmative
defenses invoked in the answer are deemed automatically denied.
So, whether I file a reply or not, all your defenses are deemed
denied.
So, conclusion, the filing of the reply is optional. You
may or may not file it. Its an optional pleading. I may or may not.
Kung gusto mo, puwede. Kung ayaw mo, puwede rin. Because I
do not have to deny your defenses.
The law says they are automatically denied. As a matter
of fact, rarely does a practitioner file a reply. Bihira man, ba.
Sometimes, it happens. But that is very rare. If you go the court,
you look at the pleadings of the lawyers. Complaint, Answer.
Wala na. Tapos. Sometimes, Reply but in most cases, wala
because of this Sec. 10. The filing of the reply is optional. It will
not prejudice the plaintiff. He is not deemed to have admitted the
defenses raised in the answer.
Section
Reply vs. Answer to Counterclaim
And a Reply should not be confused with Answer to
Counterclaim because Answer to Counterclaim is also filed by the
plaintiff. A Reply is filed by the plaintiff in response to the Answer.
An Answer to Counterclaim is also filed by the plaintiff in
response naman to the Counterclaim contained in the Answer of
the defendant.
So, distinguish Reply from Answer to Counterclaim. The
distinctions are:
1. A Reply is a response to a defense in the Answer
whereas Answer to Counterclaim is a response to another
claim.
2. The filing of a Reply is generally optional because of Sec.
10 whereas the filing of an Answer to Counterclaim is
generally mandatory. Because if the plaintiff will not file an
answer to the counterclaim, he can be declared in default
on the counterclaim.
Let us try to illustrate:
File ng pleading ang plaintiff. We will assume that the
pleading is very short, no. What is the initiatory pleading?
Complaint. So, ang sagot defendant, Answer. Ang answer ng
defendant, puwedeng sagutin ng plaintiff by way of reply pero
optional di ba? So, complaint, answer, reply.
Pero meron man ding reklamo ang defendant. So,
counterclaim against plaintiff. Generally, the counterclaim is also
attached to the answer. So, back to the plaintiff. Now, plaintiff
wants to respond to the counterclaim of defendant. So he files an
Answer to the counterclaim. And then we will assume that
defendant also wants to respond to the answer to counterclaim.
So ano yan? Reply to answer to counterclaim. This is how it will
look like.
OUTLINE OF FLOW OF PLEADINGS
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
Complaint Answer Reply (optional)
Counterclaim Answer to Counterclaim Reply to Answer to
(mandatory) Counterclaim
Yan ang tinatawag na responsive pleadings. That would
be the flow of the pleadings. Yung mga reklamo natin. I will
respond to this. You will respond to that. So, do not confuse reply
with answer to counterclaim.
Reply is answer to the complaint. Answer to
counterclaim is a response to the counterclaim. The filing of a
reply is generally optional. But the filing of answer to the
counterclaim is generally mandatory.
BAR QUESTION, 2000
X files a complaint in the RTC for the recovery of a sum of money
with damages against Y. Y files his answer denying liability under the contract of
sale and praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of cause
of action because the contract of sale was superseded by a contract of lease,
executed and signed by X and Y two weeks after the contract of sale was
executed. The contract of lease was attached to the answer. X does not file a
reply. What is the effect of the non-filing of a reply? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A reply is generally optional. If it is not filed, the new matters alleged
in the answer are deemed controverted. (Sec. 10 of Rule 6). However, since the
contract of lease attached to the answer is the basis of the defense, by not filing a
reply denying under oath the genuineness and due execution of said contract, the
plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the genuineness and due execution thereof.
(Secs. 7 and 8 Rule 8; Toribio v. Bidin, 132 SCRA 162 [1985]).
The Third-party complaint
Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. - A third (fourth,
etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a defending party
may, with leave of court, file against a person not a
party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.)-party
defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or
any other relief in respect of his opponents claim.
(12a)
116 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
First we will connect this with something you already
know. This is what we took up earlier.
A and B secured a loan from X. But actually A acted
only as an accommodation party. The real borrower actually is B.
Every centavo went to B. If the loan falls due and the loan is
unpaid, X files a case against A and B. And A not having enjoyed
the money is definitely going to run against B for reimbursement.
What pleading will A file against B?
ANSWER: A cross-claim. That is if X files a case
against both of them and A is going to seek reimbursement.
Suppose X files a case only against A. Anyway I can
collect the loan from either one. I do not have to file a case against
B because B is not really an indispensable party. So pinaylan niya
si A lang. But actually A did not enjoy a single centavo and he
wants also to claim against B. Sino ang file-an niya ng cross-
claim, eh siya man lang?
In a cross-claim you file your claim against your co-
defendant. But isa man lang ka. You cannot file a case against B
because he is a stranger man, ba. Sabi ni A: Hindi. Gusto ko
kasali yan siya. Siya gud ang nagkuha sa kuwarta. It is possible
na pabayaan lang muna ni X si B. Kung magbayad ako, file ako
ng kaso later. A will file another case against B in the future. I can
seek reimbursement from B in the future.
Pero kung gusto niyang sa kaso na ito kasali na si B,
puwede. In other words, kung bayaran ko si X bayaran ka na rin ni
B. But there is no cross-claim! What is the instrument by which A
can drag B into the case? The instrument is to file what you call a
third-party complaint. So, he will have to instigate another
complaint in the same case. Therefore, this is the main complaint,
X vs. A. So what do you call X? Plaintiff. And A? Defendant.
And this is called the third-party complaint, A vs. B. In
the third-party complaint, A is called the third party plaintiff. And B
is called a third party defendant. So, in a third-party complaint, he
is now going to seek reimbursement from B. He will drag B in the
case. Sama ka dito. Maaari ba yang ako lang dito?
So, I will forcibly bring you into the picture. Because X
should have also filed a case against you. But ako lang man ang
pinaylan. So, ako ang sasabit sa iyo. It becomes now X vs. A, A
vs. B. Yan. That is the concept of a third-party complaint.
Leave of court necessary
Now, take note. Can A just file immediately a third-party
complaint in that situation? What does the law say? A third-party
complaint is a claim that a defending party may with leave of
court. What do you mean by that phrase with leave of court?
With the permission of the court.
So, in effect, the procedure in filing a third-party
complaint is that A will have to file a motion that he will be allowed
to include B into the picture. Leave of court means there must
be a motion seeking the courts permission.
And that is what distinguishes a third-party complaint
from a counterclaim and a cross-claim. Under the previous
sections, Sec. 6, when a defending party files a counterclaim
against the plaintiff, is leave of court required for a defendant to
file a counterclaim?
ANSWER: No, hindi kailangan. You file a complaint
against me. I will answer with counterclaim. Hindi na kailangan ng
leave to file counterclaim. Derecho. The law allows the defendant
to file immediately a counterclaim. Is leave of court required
before a defendant can file a cross-claim against his co-
defendant?
ANSWER: No. Leave of court is not necessary in the
filing of a counterclaim or a cross-claim. But in the filing of a third-
party complaint, the law requires first leave of court.
Object of third-party complaint
And what is the purpose of a third-party complaint? The
purpose of a third-party complaint is contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief in respect of his opponents claim.
Therefore, what is the conclusion? The subject matter of a third-
party complaint must arise out of the same transaction or
occurrence.
Meaning, the third-party complaint is related to the main
action. Parang cross-claim ba. The concept is similar to a cross-
claim. It must be related to the subject matter. It cannot be
something new.
There was a bar problem before. Ive seen that here in
Davao. Thats why when I saw that third-party complaint, I felt
amused. I never thought that a lawyer would commit such a
mistake.
The problem was:
Section
A filed a case against B because according to A, B
borrowed money from him and never paid. Alam mo ang depensa
ni B prepared by his lawyer? The reason why I cannot pay you is
because C and D who owe me money have not also paid me.
Pagnagbayad sila sa akin, yun ang ibayad ko sa iyo. And you
know what B did? He filed a third-party complaint against C and D.
So may utang ako sa iyo, kulektahan ko yung may utang sa akin.
I felt amused because what is the connection between
the account of C and D against B. Ibang istorya yan. That could
not be a proper subject of a third-party complaint because it is not
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief in respect of
his opponents claim. If you want, you file your own case
separately. But you cannot raise that as a third-party complaint
because there is no connection between my claim against you
and your claim against these people.
Pareho rin sa cross-claim. X files a case against A and
B arising out of a loan. Sabi ni A: B, meron ka man ding utang sa
akin no, kolektahin ko na lang din yung sa iyo. So, cross-claim. Di
puwede. Because the cross-claim did not arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence. That is separate. That is between you.
You cannot model the case against me by invoking your other
cases against other people. There will be confusion.
Magkakagulo, eh. So, take note of that.
RECAP
A third-party complaint as defined in Sec. 11 is a claim
that a defending party may with leave of court file against a
person not a party to the action called a third party defendant for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief in respect
of his opponents claim. The example that I cited last week was
a creditor filing a case for collection only against, for example, one
solidary debtor. There are two solidary debtors. He filed a case
against only one . He was intending to collect the entire loan from
one debtor which anyway is allowed under the law. If the solidary
debtor who is sued would like to claim for contribution from the
other debtor who is not there in the case, he should file a third-
party complaint against that debtor.
And take note that a defendant in a third-party
complaint becomes the plaintiff. And the third person becomes
the defendant. If you have a claim against somebody who is
already a co-defendant you have no problem. All you have to do
is file a cross-claim. But since the other party is not a party to the
case, you still have to drag him to the case and the procedure is
by way of a third-party complaint.
Take note also that the law says with leave of court.
You cannot just file a third-party complaint against a third person.
You must seek the permission of the court. Unlike cross-claims
and counterclaims, the defendant does not need leave of court.
He will just file his answer with a counterclaim or answer with
cross-claim. But in a third-party complaint, there must be a
motion for leave of court.
And what is the object of a third-party complaint? The
law says contribution, or indemnity, or subrogation, or any other
relief in respect of his opponents claim. Take note that everything
is in respect of his opponents claim. So, there must be a
connection between your third-party complaint and the main action
against you. Now let us give example for each:
1) Contribution
There are two solidary debtors and the plaintiff filed a
case against only one. Practically he is collecting everything from
one debtor. But actually, the debtor being sued, is also entitled to
ask for 50% from the other debtor.
So, he files a third-party complaint against the other
debtor. What is the purpose of the third-party complaint?
Contribution.
2) Indemnity
(1) The creditor filed a case against the surety only. The
principal debtor was not included. The liability of a surety is
similar to a solidary debtor. He is liable to pay the entire loan.
But in reality, every centavo was enjoyed by the real debtor. But
the trouble is ako man ang gidemanda. And I will have to pay the
account. So, I will also file a third-party complaint against the
debtor to return to me 100% whatever amount I will be paying the
creditor. What do you call that? Indemnity.
117 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Kanina contribution. Ito, indemnity. There is only a
slight difference. In contribution, I am only claiming from you 50%
because tig-50 man tayo sa utang. Sa indemnity, Im claiming
100% because I did not actually enjoy a single centavo of the loan.
(2) You are sued by someone for damages arising from
a vehicular accident and you are covered by insurance. Sa
insurance policy, di ba may TPL (Third party liability). When you
are covered by insurance, you can pass on the entire liability to the
insurance company. So, if I am sued by the plaintiff for damages
and I want to pass everything to the insurance company, I will file a
third-party complaint against the insurance company. And the
purpose there is for indemnification in respect of the plaintiffs
claim.
3) Subrogation
What do you mean when you say you are subrogated to
my rights and obligation. It means you step into my shoes. You
take my place. You assume my rights and obligations. Example:
A, lessor and B, lessee. A owns a property which he leased to B.
Now, B subleased the property to C. Meaning, yung inarkila ko,
ipaarkila ko rin sa iba. Ipasa ko ba. The lessee becomes the
sublessor and C becomes the sublessee. So, when you sublease
the property, possession is surrendered to C. Therefore, C takes
over the property as if he is the one who leased it.
Now, suppose the property which was leased was
damaged. And therefore the lessor would like to seek damages for
the destruction of the leased property. Sino ang idemanda niya?
He will file a case against B, the lessee.
A will be the plaintiff. B will be the defendant. Because
tayo ang magkausap, eh. I leased the property to you. You have
bound yourself to take good care of the property. But in reality,
while that is the obligation of the lessee since he subleased it to C,
in effect, C became the possessor.
And therefore, by virtue of the sublease, C is supposed
to take care of the property which is the obligation of B. So B will
file a third-party complaint against C. So B becomes the third party
plaintiff and C becomes the third party defendant. Ang problema ni
B ipasa niya kay C. Because when B subleased the property to C,
C was subrogated to Bs rights and obligations under the lease
contract.
So the purpose of the third-party complaint is
subrogation. You have to answer for my liability because you took
my place in the occupation of the property.
4) Any other relief
This is very broad. A sold this land to B. A is the vendor
and B is the vendee. So B is now the owner or possessor of the
land. All of a sudden, X files a case against B to recover the land
because according to X, he is the real owner of the land and
therefore, he is entitled to take possession of the land. But actually
B bought the land from A. And under the law on Sales, in selling a
property, you warrant that you are the owner. There is a warranty
of every seller that he owns the property. And here comes
somebody claiming to be the owner and he wants to drive me out.
Eh, di isabit kita. Binili ko sa iyo ito, eh. Sabi mo may-ari ka.
So, I will file a third- party complaint against you. What
is the purpose of the third-party complaint? To enforce the
warranty of the vendor under the law on Sales. So, this would fall
under any other relief with respect of his opponents claim. I
bought the land from you and now I am being driven out. Isauli mo
ang pera ko. That is to enforce his warranty as the seller.
Take note that the premise of a third-party complaint is
contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief in respect
of his opponents claim. That is the common denominator. In
respect of his opponents claim. What does that mean? The third-
party complaint must be related to the main action. It must
normally arise out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence of the main action.
So, the third-party complaint cannot be a cause of action
which is totally unrelated to the case filed against you. Example: I
will file a case against A to collect a loan. Sabi ni A: Meron man
ding utang si B. So, I will file a case against B to collect the loan.
Sabi ni A: I will file a case against him para makuha ko sa iyo ang
pambayad mo naman sa akin. Ano? Anong pakialam ko sa utang
mo sa ibang tao? Meaning, there is no connection between your
loan to me and his loan to you. You file another case. Huwag
mong lubugin itong kaso natin. So, it cannot be the subject matter
of the third-party complaint because it is not in respect of his
opponents claim.
That is why under the rules, a defendant cannot just file
a third-party complaint. He must file a motion? Why? Because
Section
the original plaintiff may object to the third-party complaint on the
ground that there is no connection between the case against a
third-party complaint and the case Ive been filing against him. So
pampatagal lang yan. Panlubog sa kaso.
Tests to determine when third-party complaint is proper
That is why the SC in one case, laid down the tests to
determine the propriety of a third-party complaint. According to the
SC, in order for a third-party complaint to be proper, it must pass
any of the following tests. These tests were laid down by the SC in
the leading case of:
CAPAYAS vs. CFI of ALBAY
77 PHIL 181
HELD:
There are four possible tests in determining when a third-party complaint
is proper:
1. If it arises out of the same transaction on which plaintiffs claim is
based.
2. If the third-partys claim, although arising out of another contract or
transaction is connected with plaintiffs claim.
3. If the third party defendant would be liable to plaintiffs claim against
the original defendant although the third party defendants liability
arises out of another transaction.
4. The third party defendant may assert any defense which the third
party plaintiff has or may have against plaintiffs claim.
1) If it arises out of the same
transaction on which plaintiffs
claim is based.
Example of this is solidary debtor.
A and B signed a promissory note in favor of X for
P100T. Solidary. So the share of A is P50T. The share of B is
also P50T. X filed a case only against A to collect the entire P100T
which under the law on obligations can be done, no. A can be
made to shoulder the liability of B. So, A filed also a third-party
complaint against B for contribution of P50T. Is the third-party
complaint proper?
ANSWER: Yes, because it arises out of the same
transaction on which plaintiffs claim is based.
2) If the third-partys claim, although
arising out of another contract or
transaction is connected with
plaintiff s claim.
So, this is different from the first, no. Because in the first
test, the third-party complaint arises out of the same transaction on
which plaintiffs claim is based. Ito naman it is arising out of
another contract or transaction but it is connected with plaintiffs
claim.
The best example to this is the insurance case I cited earlier.
My vehicle is covered by a third-party liability (TPL)
insurance. meaning, kung makabangga ako, the insurance
company will be paying for that. As a matter of fact that is
mandatory under the law. If you own a vehicle, you cannot register
it without a TPL insurance. So, while I was driving my car, I
bumped another car. So, the owner of that car sued me for
damages. I will file a third-party complaint against my insurance
company. Is the third party complaint proper?
ANSWER: Yes, it will meet the second test. My third
party complaint arises out of another transaction. Why am I being
sued. The suit against me is quasi-delict. My third-party complaint
is based on an insurance contract.
So, it is not arising out of the same transaction but my
contract is precisely related to that. Why am I being sued?
Precisely to answer for my liability. So the third-party complaint
would be proper.
3) If the third party defendant would
be liable to plaintiffs claim against
the original defendant although
the third party defendants liability
arises out of another transaction.
A leased his property to B. B subleased the same
property to C. Therefore, C is now in possession and he is
suppose to take care of the property. In effect, C is subrogated to
the obligations of B to A. Since the property was damaged, A the
118 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
lessor sued B. And since the one in possession is C, B filed a third
party complaint against C. Is the third party complaint proper?
ANSWER: Yes, because it meets the third possible test.
The third party defendant C would be liable to plaintiffs
claim A. C will be liable to A for As claim against B although the
liability of C arises out of another transaction. Because the liability
of C to B arises out of the sublease contract. But since the
sublease contract is connected with the lease contract, in effect,
you took the place of B.
4) The third party defendant may
assert any defense which the third
party plaintiff has or may have
against plaintiff s claim.
B is the registered owner of a car. he sold the car to A.
A is now using the car. The trouble is A did not register the same
in the LTO. So, while A is the real owner, B is still the registered
owner. So is what you call the actual owner. One day, while A was
driving the car, he bumped the car of X. And X, when he
researched in the file in the LTO nakita niya ang may-ari si B. So,
sinong gidemanda ni X? Si B. And under the law, the registered
owner is always liable. Di naman akin ito. Dugay naman
gibaligya. therefore, B filed a third party complaint against A. My
golly, ikaw naman ang may-ari nito. Ikaw pala ang nakabangga
dito. And A admitted that he is now the owner. Haharapin ko yan,
sabi ni A.
In other words, A can assert any defense which B could
have asserted. Because the issue of who is negligent or not
negligent is between X and B. Since A is the real owner and the
one driving, A will directly fight the claim of X. If you reach that
kind of situation, then the third party complaint is proper. because
there is always a connection, eh. There is a connection between
what the main action says and what the third party complaint is
saying.
Now, if you meet any of these tests, the third-party
complaint is proper. Now, we will go to some very interesting
cases on third-party complaint. very instructive cases.
SAMALA vs. VICTOR
170 SCRA 453
FACTS:
A is a passenger of a jeep owned by B. The jeep was bumped by a
truck owned by C causing injuries to A. A filed a case against B for damages
arising from breach of contract of carriage. B claimed that the one who is at fault
was C. So, he filed a third party complaint against C. During the trial, the court
found that B was not the one at fault and that it was C. The court held that C is
directly liable to A. The case filed against B was dismissed. So A asked C to pay
for the damages. Sabi ni C: That is irregular. Why? A did not sue me. Sino
man ang gidemanda ni A? Di ba si B? Si B gidemanda si C. Ang tama diyan C
is liable to B, B is liable to A. How come C is being made directly liable to A
when A did not sue C but B. That was the first issue.
Illustration: Truck
Jeep
A passenger
B owner of the jeep
C owner of the truck
Bumped
A vs B B vs C
First case: (Breach of contract of carriage) Second case: (Third party complaint)
The question to be answered is this : In a third party complaint,
the third party defendant should be liable to whom? Is he liable to B or A? The
SC said: Normally, C is liable to B and B is liable to A. That is the normal
procedure. That is covered by the term contribution, indemnity, subrogation in
respect of his opponents claim. But C can be made directly liable to A. That is
covered by the phrase or any other relief in respect of his opponents claim.
Therefore, it is possible for a third party defendant to be directly liable to plaintiff
without passing anymore to the original defendant because of that phrase. That
is a very broad term.
The second objection raised by C was: The claim of A against B
is damages arising from breach of contract of transportation, culpa contractual.
The third party complaint of B against C is damages arising from culpa
aquiliana. How can C be liable to A for culpa aquiliana when the claim of A is
culpa contractual? May a third party defendant like C be liable to A for damages
based on quasi delict to plaintiff when plaintiffs original action against defendant
was based on culpa contractual? That is the second issue.
Section
And the SC said, yes. The purpose of the rule is to avoid circuity
of action and to dispose of in one litigation the entire subject matter arising from
a particular set of facts. It is immaterial that the third party plaintiff asserts a
cause of action against the third party defendant on a theory different from that
asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant. A defendant in a counter action,
like B, may join as third party defendants those liable to him in tort for the
plaintiffs claim against him or directly to the plaintiff.
So, the purpose of this is to settle in one litigation each
others claim. So, puwede kang i-hold liable. Anyway that is the
ultimate end of the whole thing. So, why go around the bush when
you can finish in one litigation the entire controversy between the
three of them? So, that is a very instructive case on third party
complaint.
I want you to compare this next case with that of Javier
vs. IAC on compulsory counterclaims in criminal cases.
SHAFFER vs. RTC JUDGE of OLONGAPO CITY, Br. 75
167 SCRA 386
The issue here was: Is there such a thing as a third party
complaint in a criminal case?
FACTS:
Shaffer owns a car covered by a TPL insurance. While he was
driving his car, he bumped another car causing serious physical injuries to the
driver of that car. The injured owner of the other car filed a criminal case against
Shaffer for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence. And the
victim did not reserve his right to file a separate civil action for damages against
Shaffer. In Criminal Procedure, when there is no reservation, the civil liability
arising from the crime is deemed impliedly instituted. Since Shaffer is covered
by an insurance policy, he filed a third party complaint against the insurance
company to answer for the civil liability. The insurance company filed a motion to
dismiss the third party complaint on the argument that the third party complaint
is entirely different from Shaffers criminal liability in the criminal case. If we will
allow a third party complaint in a criminal case, it will only clutter, complicate and
delay the criminal case. Now, is the insurance company correct?
HELD:
The SC said that the insurance company is wrong. And the
explanation is simple which we all know. Based on basic principles of law. An
offense causes two classes of injuries, the social injury and the personal injury.
Social injury to the people of the Philippines and personal injury to the private
victim. In this case, the civil aspect of the offense was impliedly instituted with
the criminal case. Shaffer may raise all defenses available to him insofar as the
criminal and civil aspects of the case are concerned.
Shaffers claim of indemnity against the insurance company arose
from the claim for damages by the offended party in the criminal case.
Therefore, Shaffers claim against the insurance company is related to the
criminal case.
So, here is a criminal case where the accused was
allowed to file a third party complaint against the insurance
company which is not a party involved in the criminal case. So, the
ruling is similar to the case of Javier that there is such a thing as a
counterclaim in a criminal case. Now, as I said, because of the
ruling of the SC, in Cabaero vs. Cantos, we are suspending the
Javier doctrine because it creates more problems.
In effect, that ruling also applies to the case of Shaffer.
The SC said in the case of Javier:
Thus, the trial court should confine itself to the
criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising
out of the crime. The counterclaim and cross-claim and third party
complaint should be set aside or refused cognizance without
prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.
Until there are definitive rules of procedure to govern the institution,
prosecution and resolution of the civil aspect, and the
consequences and the implications thereof impliedly instituted in a
criminal case, trial courts should limit their jurisdiction to the civil
liability of the accused arising from the criminal case.
That is what exactly was what the insurance company
was claiming in the Shaffer case. That the trial court should not
allow the third party complaint because it will only clutter,
complicate and delay the criminal case. But sabi ng SC, no,
puwede.
Now, it seems that the insurance argument is correct.
Shafer, in the meantime has to give way to the ruling in Cabaero.
For the moment, you cannot file a third party complaint in a
criminal case. So, what is law last year is no longer the law now
because of these recent decided cases.
Now, we will go to another situation.
Suppose A will file a case against B to recover P150T
damages against B. So, RTC. Now, B is covered by an insurance
policy. So B filed a case against X & Co. for indemnity arising out
of the collision. But the maximum liability of X & Co. under the
119 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
insurance contract is only P50T which is supposed to be triable in
the MTC. Meaning, ang habol ni A kay B is P150T. Hinahabol ni B
si X for P50T. X filed a motion to dismiss because according to X
the third party complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
The main action is filed in the RTC. And the third party complaint
which is only P50T is also filed there. Can the RTC entertain the
third party complaint which is only P50T?
REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL SURETY
25 SCRA 641
HELD:
The third party complaint need not be within the jurisdiction of the
court where the principal action is pending. The reason is that a third party
complaint is merely a continuation of and ancillary to the principal action. And
jurisdiction over the principal suit embraces all incidental matters arising
therefrom and connected therewith. If the RTC has jurisdiction over the
complaint, necessarily it has jurisdiction over the third party complaint although
the amount claimed is only P100T or lower because the third party complaint is
only incidental or ancillary.
That is the same principle in compulsory counterclaim, di
ba? Remember? I will file a case against you to recover a piece
of land, accion publiciana. RTC. And then ang habol mo sa akin
for reimbursement for necessary expense is P50T. Can the RTC
entertain the compulsory counterclaim?
ANSWER: Yes, that is allowed under the rules
specifically under Sec. 7 because the compulsory counterclaim is
merely ancillary to the main action. Also, in the case of:
EASTERN ASSURANCE & SURETY CORP. vs. CUI
105 SCRA 622
HELD:
A third part complaint has to yield to the jurisdiction and venue of
the main action.
Now, if there is such a thing as a third-party complaint, obviously,
there is also such a thing as a fourth party complaint. Where the third party
defendant becomes the fourth party plaintiff. And there is a fourth party
defendant. And there is also such a thing as fifth party complaint, etc., etc. And
the obvious purpose of all these 4th, 5th, 6th party complaints is for contribution,
indemnity, subrogation or any other relief in respect of his opponents claim. Of
course, rarely, does it happen. Ive seen a case where the parties have gone as
far as fourth party complaints. So A vs. B, B vs. C, and C vs. D. But I have not
seen so far a fifth party complaint but theoretically, it is possible.
As car was bumped by Bs car from behind causing damage to the
vehicle of A. So A filed a complaint against B for damages arising from the
collision. Now, according to B, the reason why his car bumped the rear portion
of As vehicle was because he was also bumped by C from behind. Binunggo
niya ako kaya nabunggo ko rin si A. Si B will file a third party complaint against
C throwing the liability to C. Now suppose C says that it happened because D
bumped me from behind also. So, C will file a fourth party complaint against D.
And according to D, the reason why it happened is because E bumped me from
behind and therefore files a fifth party complaint against E.
Meaning, pasahan, ba. They will throw the liability to the one who
did it. That is a good hypothetical example of how a fourth, fifth, sixth party
complaint can come into play.
BAR QUESTION, 2000:
JKs real property is being attached by the sheriff in a civil action for
damages against LM. JK claims that he is not a party to the case; that his
property is not involved in said case; and that he is the sole registered owner of
said property. Under the Rules of Court, what must JK do to prevent the Sheriff
from attaching his property? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSER:
If the real property has been attached, the remedy is to file a third-
party claim. The third-party claimant should make an affidavit of his title to the
property attached, stating the grounds of his title thereto, and serve such affidavit
upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the attached property, and a
copy thereof upon the attaching party. (Sec. 14, Rule 57) The third-party claimant
may also intervene or file a separate action to vindicate his claim to the property
involved and secure the necessary reliefs, such as preliminary injunction, which
will not be considered as interference with a court of coordinate jurisdiction. (Ong
v. Tating, 149 SCRA 265, [1987])
BAR QUESTION, 2005:
A obtained a money judgment against B. After the finality of the
decision, the court issued a writ of execution for the enforcement thereof.
Conformably with the said writ, the sheriff levied upon certain properties under B's
name. C filed a third-party claim over said properties claiming that B had already
transferred the same to him. A moved to deny the third-party claim and to hold B
Section
and C jointly and severally liable to him for the money judgment alleging that B
had transferred said properties to C to defraud him (A).
After due hearing, the court denied the third-party claim and rendered
an amended decision declaring B and C jointly and severally liable to A for the
money judgment. Is the ruling of the court correct? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO. C has not been properly impleaded as a party defendant. He
cannot be held liable for the judgment against A without a trial. In fact, since no
bond was filed by B, the sheriff is liable to C for damages. C can file a separate
action to enforce his third-party claim. It is in that suit that B can raise the ground
of fraud against C. However, the execution may proceed where there is a finding
that the claim is fraudulent. (Tanongan v. Samson, G.R. No. 140889, May 9,
2002)
Sec. 12. Bringing new parties. - 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.
Meaning, to try a counterclaim or cross-claim, a new
party is dragged into the case. An instance where a new party is
brought in as defendant for the granting of complete relief in the
determination of a counterclaim or a cross-claim was the case of:
SAPUGAY vs. CA
183 SCRA 464
FACTS:
The action started as a complaint filed by Mobil Philippines against
one of its gasoline dealers, Joel Lina Sapugay. Sapugay filed a counterclaim
against Mobil. But in the counterclaim of Sapugay against Mobil, he also dragged
into the counterclaim the manager, a certain Cardenas. So sinabit niya yung
manager. Can you file a counterclaim against somebody who is not even a
plaintiff? That was the question. Because as defined by the law, a counterclaim
is filed by the defendant against the plaintiff. Paano si Cardenas, hindi naman
siya plaintiff? The trial court allowed it so the case went to the SC. Was the
inclusion of Cardenas in the counterclaim proper?
HELD:
And the SC ruled: The general rule is that a defendant cannot by a
counterclaim bring into the action any claim against persons other than the
plaintiff. That is the general rule but it admits of an exception. And the exception
cited was this section. The court can bring into the case a third party if it is
necessary for the adjudication of a counterclaim or a cross-claim. So the court
said: The inclusion therefore of Cardenas in defendants counterclaim is
sanctioned by the rules particularly by Sec. 12.
So, that is a clear illustration of how to bring to the case
a person not originally a party for the purpose of adjudicating a
counterclaim or a cross-claim. The case of Sapugay, however,
should not be confused with the later case of:
CHAVEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
193 SCRA 282
FACTS:
The case started because of those PCGG cases where cases are
filed by the government against former Pres. Marcos, his relatives, friends and
cronies for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth. The cases were instituted by the
government through former Solicitor General Frank Chavez against so many
people. In one of these cases, one of the defendants was Sen. Juan Ponce
Enrile. He was a part of the Marcos cabinet so he was one of the defendants.
In these PCGG cases before the Sandiganbayan, Enrile filed an answer with a
counterclaim against the PCGG. Sabi niya, this case filed against him is a
harassment suit which was instigated by Chavez, the lawyer for the government.
So, in his counterclaim, he included Chavez. Siguro, the lawyers of Enrile knew
about the case of Sapugay where you can file a counterclaim against someone
who is not a party. Because in this case, the party was the PCGG, the
government. Chavez was not a party, he was only the lawyer for the plaintiff.
So the issue is may a defendant in his counterclaim implead plaintiffs lawyer for
allegedly instigating the harassment suit by plaintiff against him. And the
Sandiganbayan said yes. So, Chavez went to the SC.
HELD:
The SC said no. We cannot allow that. Because if you will include
the lawyer in the case that he is handling, he will be busy defending himself. He
can no longer defend his client. Very mischievous, ba. So the lawyer should not
be made a defendant in the very case which he is handling.
This case should not be confused with Sapugay because in that
case, he was not a lawyer. He was the manager of Mobil. To allow a
counterclaim against a lawyer who files a complaint for his client who is merely
120 RULE 6
 KINDS OF PLEADINGS
their representative in court and not a plaintiff or complainant in the case would
lead to mischievous consequences. A lawyer owes his client entire devotion to
his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and
the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. That is legal ethics, no. A lawyer
cannot properly attend to his duties towards his client if in the same case he is
kept busy defending himself.
Now do you mean to tell me that a lawyer is immune from suit if he
files unfounded, baseless civil cases? The SC said no. We do not suggest that
a lawyer enjoys a special immunity from damage suit. however, when he acts in
the name of a client, he should not be sued on a counterclaim in the very same
case he has filed only as counsel and not as a party. Any claim for alleged
damages or other causes of action should be filed in an entirely separate and
distinct civil action.
Sec. 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.) party complaint. - A third
(fourth, etc.)-party defendant may allege in his answer
his defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims, including
such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff
may have against the original plaintiff in respect of the
latters claim against the third-party plaintiff. (n)
Well, this is one of the tests to determine the propriety of
a third party complaint. Whether the third party defendant can
directly controvert the main action. A vs. B. B vs. C. As we said,
normally, C defends himself against B. And B defends himself
against A. But is it possible for C to directly defend himself
against the complaint of A?
ANSWER: Yes, puwedeng deretsahan, eh. As a matter
of fact, the new rule says C can even file a counterclaim directly
against the original plaintiff. Because normally, ang counterclaim
mo is against B not against A. That is to show the closeness, ba.
That the counterclaim is only part of the case filed by A. So,
puwede kong deretsuhin yan. Labanan kita.
Like what happened in the case I cited. The car owed
by B was sold to C and C never registered the transaction. Sa
records, si B pa rin but the one driving is C. Nabanggaan ang
kotse ni A. When A went to the LTO, according to the records, ang
may-ari si B. So gidemanda niya si B. B later filed a third party
complaint against C. But C can frontally dispute the claim of A that
there was negligence on his part. So mano-mano sila. In other
words, sila na ang magbakbakan. That is why in the 1995 case of:
SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD vs. CA
243 SCRA 143
FACTS:
Here is a case where C is fighting directly the original plaintiff.
Normally, if C is sued in a third party complaint by B, which complaint should C
answer? He should answer the third party complaint. B will answer the
complaint of A. C will answer the third party complaint of B. That is the normal
procedure. But according to the SC in this case: If C is directly fighting A, he
should also answer the complaint of A. So, C should answer the third party
complaint of B and C should also answer the complaint of A. Anyway you are
directly fighting him now.
HELD:
A third party complaint involves an action separate and distinct from
although related to the main complaint. A third party defendant who feels
aggrieved by some allegations in the main complaint should aside from
answering the third party complaint also answer the main complaint. In effect,
he should answer the third party complaint and the main complaint.
BAR QUESTION, 2002:
The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC for damages allegedly
caused by the latters encroachment on the plaintiffs lot. In his answer, the
defendant denied the plaintiffs claim and alleged that it was the plaintiff who in
fact had encroached on his (defendants) land. Accordingly, the defendant
counterclaimed against the plaintiff for damages resulting from the alleged
encroachment on his lot. The plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for extension of
time to answer the defendants counterclaim, but the court denied the motion on
the ground that it should have been set for hearing. On the defendants motion,
therefore, the court declared the plaintiff in default on the counterclaim. Was the
plaintiff validly declared in default? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the plaintiff was not validly declared in default. A motion for
extension of time to file an answer may be filed ex parte and need not be set for
hearing. [Amante vs. Sunga, 64 SCRA 192 (1975)].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The general rule is that a counterclaim must be answered within ten
(10) days from service. (Rule 11, sec. 4). However, a counterclaim that raises
Section
issues which are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the Complaint
need not be answered. Gojo v. Goyala, 35 SCRA 557 (1970)].
In this case, the defendants counterclaim is a compulsory
counterclaim which arises out or is connected with the transaction and
occurrence constituting the subject matter of the plaintiffs claim. It raises the
same issue of who encroached on whose land. Hence, there was no need to
answer the counterclaim
BAR QUESTION, 1999:
a) What is a counterclaim? (2%)
b) Distinguish a counterclaim from a crossclaim. (2%)
c) A, who is engaged in tile installation business, was sued by EE Industries for
breach of contract for installing different marble tiles in its offices as provided in
their contract. Without filing any motion to dismiss, A filed its Answer with
Counterclaim theorizing that EE Industries has no legal capacity to sue because it
is not a duly registered corporation. By way of counterclaim, A asked for moral
and actual damages as her business depleted as a result of the withdrawal and
cancellation by her clients of their contracts due to the filing of the case. The case
was dismissed after the trial court found that EE Industries is not a registered
corporation and therefore has no legal capacity to sue. However, it set a date for
the reception of evidence on A's counterclaim. EE Industries opposed on the
ground that the counterclaim could no longer be prosecuted in view of the
dismissal of the main. Is the stand of EE Industries sustainable? Explain. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A COUNTERCLAIM is any claim which a defending party may have
against an opposing party. (Sec. 6, Rule 6)
b) A counterclaim is distinguished from a CROSSCLAIM in that a cross-
claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein. A counterclaim is against an opposing party while a cross-
claim is against a co-party. (Sec. 8, Rule 6)
c) No, because if no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of the
grounds for dismissal provided in the Rules may be pleaded as an affirmative
defense in the answer which may include a counterclaim. This is what A did by
filing an Answer alleging the lack of legal capacity of EE Industries to sue
because it is not a duly registered corporation with a counterclaim for damages.
The dismissal of the complaint on this ground is without prejudice to the
prosecution of the counterclaim in the same action because it is a compulsory
counterclaim. (Sec. 6 of Rule 16.)
BAR QUESTION, 1997
B and C borrowed P400,000.00 from A. The promissory note was
executed by B and C in a Joint and several capacity. B, who received the money
from A, gave C P200,000.00. C, in turn, loaned P100,000.00 out of the
P200,000.00 he received to D. a) In an action filed by A against B and C with the
RTC of Quezon City, can B file a cross-claim against C for the amount of
P200,000.00? b) Can C file a third party complaint against D for the amount of P
100,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes. B can file a cross-claim against C for the amount of 200,000.00 given to
C. A cross-claim is a claim filed by one party against a co-party arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or a
counterclaim therein and may include a claim that the party against whom it is
asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim
asserted against the cross-claimant. (Sec. 8 Rule 6)
(b) No, C cannot file a third-party complaint against D because the loan of
P100,000 has no connection with the opponent's claim. C could have loaned the
money out of other funds in his possession.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, C can file a third-party complaint against D because the loan of
100,000.00 was taken out of the P200,000 received from B and hence the loan
seeks contribution in respect to his opponent's claim. (Sec. 11 of Rule 6)
121 RULE 6