Counterclaim/Nature of:
Villanueva-Ong v. Enrile, G.R. No. 212904, November 22, 2017
4 December 2012: A complaint fordamages was filed by Enrile(
respondent
) against Villanueva-Ong(
petitioner
) based on the libelous articlewritten by the petitioner which waspublished in the Opinion
Section of thePhilippine Star.
o
The article characterizes Enrileas a liar, fraud, and manipulator.
o
The statements tend to cause dishonor, discredit, disrespect,and contempt of
respondent
–
for changing the history.
17 January 2013: Petitioner filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims.
o
First compulsory counterclaim:
o
Second compulsorycounterclaim:
A motion to dismiss was filed by Enrilewhich argued that the counterclaimsfiled by the
petitioner are permissive innature and must have complied with therequirements of an
initiatory pleadingsuch as the payment of docket fees andcertification of forum
shopping.
Petitioner opposed the respondent’s
motion alleging that her counterclaimsare both compulsory in nature, sinceboth arose
from the filing of
respondent’s complaint.
RTC:
Gave the petitioner 15 days fromreceipt of the said order to pay thedocket fees,
otherwise, the same will bedismissed.
CA:
Denied the petition for certiorari.
Hence, this petition.
Ruling:
In this case, the complaint filed by respondent for damages arose from the alleged
malicious publication written by petitioner, hence central to the resolution of the case is
petitioner's malice, or specifically that the libelous statement must be shown to have been
written or published with the knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of
whether they are false or not.[21]Meanwhile, petitioner's counterclaim presupposes bad
faith or malice on the part of respondent in instituting the complaint for damages. In the
allegations supporting her counterclaims, it was alleged that respondent's complaint was
filed merely to harass or humiliate her.Such allegations are founded on the theory of
malicious prosecution. Traditionally, the term malicious prosecution has been associated
with unfounded criminal actions, jurisprudence has also recognized malicious prosecution to
include baseless civil suits intended to vex and humiliate the defendant despite the absence
of a cause of action or probable cause.[22]In this case, while it can be conceded that
petitioner can validly interpose a claim based on malicious prosecution, the question still
remains as to the nature of her counterclaim, and the consequent obligation to comply with
the requirements of initiatory pleadings.We find that petitioners claims are compulsory, and
hence should be resolved along with the civil complaint filed by respondent, without the
necessity of complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings.
A counterclaim purely for damages and attorneys fees by reason of the unfounded suit filed
by the respondent, has long been settled as falling under the classification of compulsory
counterclaim and it must be pleaded in the same action, otherwise, it is barred.[23] In
Lafarge Cement Phil. Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp.[24] citing Tiu Po, et al. v. Hon.
Bautista, et al.,[25] this Court ruled that counterclaims seeking moral, actual and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees against the respondent on account of their malicious and
unfounded complaint was compulsory.[26]In this case, the counterclaims, set up by
petitioner arises from the filing of respondent's complaint. "The counterclaim is so
intertwined with the main case that it is incapable of proceeding independently."[27] We find
that the evidence supporting respondent's cause that malice attended in the publication of
the article would necessarily negate petitioner's counterclaim for damages premised on the
malicious and baseless suit filed by respondent.
Considering the foregoing, petitioner's counterclaims should not be prejudiced for non-
compliance with the procedural requirements governing initiatory pleadings.Neither should
her counterclaims be dismissed pursuant to this Court's ruling in Korea Technologies Co.
Ltd. v. Hon. Lerma, et al.,[31] which held that "effective August 16, 2004 under Section 7,
Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in
compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims."[32] Note must be taken of OCA Circular No. 96-
2009 entitled "Docket Fees For Compulsory Counterclaims," dated August 13, 2009, where
it was clarified that the rule on imposition of filing fees on compulsory counterclaims has
been suspended. Such suspension remains in force up to this day.WHEREFORE, premises
considered, We resolve to GRANT the petition. The Decision dated March 4, 2014 and
Resolution dated June 9, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 132034 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.SO ORDERED.
Principles:
The nature and kinds of counterclaims are well-explained m jurisprudence. In Alba, Jr. v.
Malapajo,[16] the Court explained:[C]ounterclaim is any claim which a defending party may
have against an opposing party. 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 party's 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, necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim or even
where there is such a connection, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or it
requires for adjudication the presence of third persons over whom the court acquire
jurisdiction. A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up in the same action.[17]"A
counterclaim is permtsstve if it does not arise out of or is not necessarily connected with the
subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It is essentially an independent claim that may
be filed separately in another case."[18]Determination of the nature of counterclaim is
relevant for purposes of compliance to the requirements of initiatory pleadings. In order for
the court to acquire jurisdiction, permissive counterclaims require payment of docket fees,
while compulsory counterclaims do not.
Jurisprudence has laid down tests in order to determine the nature of a counterclaim, to wit:
(a) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the
same? (b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants' claims, absent the
compulsory counterclaim rule? (c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute
plaintiffs' claim as well as the defendants' counterclaim? and (d) Is there any logical relation
between the claim and the counterclaim[?] x x x [A positive answer to all four questions
would indicate that the counterclaim is compulsory
