[CivPro] | [Pleadings Counterclaim and cross-claim] 1

[JDesabelle]

ALDAY VS FGU INSURANCE CORP

[G.R. No. 138822] | [January 23, 2001] | [J. Gonzaga-Reyes]

CASE SUMMARY:
DOCTRINE:

FACTS
Respondent FGU Insurance filed a complaint with RTC against petitioner
Evangeline Alday
o Alday owed FGU P114k (unliquidated cash advances, unremitted costs of
premiums and other charges she incurred in the course of her work FGUs
insurance agent)
Alday filed her answer and counterclaim
o Asserted her right for the payment of
P104k (direct commissions, profit commissions and contingent bonuses
earned from 1986)
P500k (accumulated premium reserves)
o Also prayed for attorney's fees, litigation expenses, moral damages and
exemplary damages
FGU filed a "Motion to Strike Out Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim And To
Declare Defendant In Default" because Alday's answer was allegedly filed out of
time.
RTC denied motion. MR denied.
FGU filed a motion to dismiss Alday 's counterclaim
o RTC never acquired jurisdiction because of Aldays non-payment of
docket fees
Alday asked RTC to declare her counterclaim as exempt from payment of
docket fees since it (counterclaim) is compulsory and that FGU be declared
in default for having failed to answer such counterclaim.
RTC granted FGUs MTD, and consequently, denied Aldays motion. Aldays
MR denied.
o Aldays counterclaim merely permissive in nature
o Aldays failure to pay docket fees prevented RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over
the same
CA sustained RTCs decision. MR denied.
o The allegations in Aldays answer show that her counterclaim is not compulsory
That, indeed, FGU's cause of action which is not supported by any document
other than the self-serving 'Statement of Account'

That it should be noted that the cause of action of FGU is not the
enforcement of the Special Agent's Contract but the alleged 'cash
accountabilities
 A careful analysis of FGU's complaint will show that its cause of action is
not for specific performance or enforcement of the Special Agent's Contract
rather, it is for the payment of the alleged cash accountabilities

o To support the heading "Compulsory Counterclaim" in her answer and give the
impression that the counterclaim is compulsory Alday alleged that FGU has
unjustifiably failed to remit to defendant despite repeated demands in violation
of their contract

o Thus, while on one hand Alday alleged that FGU's cause of action had nothing to
do with the Special Agent's Contract, on the other hand, she claimed that FGU
violated said contract which gave rise to her cause of action.
Hence, present petition.
o Alday:
FGU is estopped from questioning her non-payment of docket fees because it
did not raise this issue when it filed its motion (Motion to Strike out Answer
With Compulsory Counterclaim And To Declare Defendant In Default") with
RTC
FGU assailed RTCs jurisdiction 9 months after receiving her answer
RTC should have declared FGU in default for having failed to answer her
counterclaim
o FGU: questions the jurisdiction of the CA over the appeal filed by Alday

PROCEDURE SUMMARY
Action Decision
Respondent FGU filed a complaint with
the RTC against petitioner Alday
Alday filed her answer and counterclaim
FGU filed a "Motion to Strike Out
Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim
And To Declare Defendant In Default" RTC denied motion. MR denied.
because Alday's answer was allegedly
filed out of time.
FGU filed a motion to dismiss Alday 's
RTC granted FGUs MTD.
counterclaim
Alday asked RTC to declare her
counterclaim as exempt from payment
of docket fees since it is compulsory
RTC denied Aldays motion. MR denied
and that FGU be declared in default for
having failed to answer such
counterclaim.
Alday appealed to CA CA sustained RTCs decision. MR denied.
CA decision MODIFIED.
Petitioners counterclaim REINSTATED.
Present petition
RTC ORDERED to require Petitioner to
pay prescribed docket fees

ISSUE/RATIO
1. W/N FGU is estopped from questioning Aldays non-payment of docket fees. NO
 [CivPro] | [Pleadings Counterclaim and cross-claim] 3
[JDesabelle]

a. Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence to assert a right within a

reasonable time
b. In this case, the issue was raised by FGU with the RTC itself, the body where the
action is pending, even before the presentation of evidence and before any
judgment could be rendered

2. W/N FGU is estopped from questioning CAs jurisdiction over Aldays appeal. YES
a. Although the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the
action, a party may be estopped from raising such questions if he has actively
taken part in the very proceedings
b. In this case, FGU actively took part in the proceedings before CA by filing its
appellee's brief. It also failed to object to CAs jurisdiction during the entire
duration of the proceedings.

3. W/N Aldays counterclaim is compulsory or permissive in nature.

Counterclaim for commissions, bonuses, and accumulated premium
reserves is merely permissive, claims for damages, allegedly suffered as
a result of FGUs filing of its complaint, are compulsory
a. Compulsory counterclaim - arises out of or is connected with the
transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim
i. does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
b. Tests in determining if a counterclaim is compulsory
i. Valencia vs CA:
1) Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and
counterclaim largely the same?
2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim
absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's
claim as well as defendant's counterclaim?
4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the
counterclaim?
ii. Quintanilla v. CA: Compelling test of compulsoriness
1) requires a logical relationship between the claim and
counterclaim (i.e. where conducting separate trials would entail a
substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the
court)
b. Alday's counterclaim for commissions, bonuses, and accumulated
premium reserves is merely permissive
i. The evidence required to prove her claims differs from that needed
to establish FGUs demands for the recovery of cash accountabilities
ii. The recovery of FGU's claims is not contingent or dependent upon
establishing Alday's counterclaim,
1) Alday declared in her answer that FGU's cause of action, unlike
her own, was not based upon the Special Agent's Contract
iii. Thus, for RTC to acquire jurisdiction over her permissive
counterclaim, she is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees.
 iv. Pursuant to the ruling in Sun Insurance, RTC should have instead
given Alday a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable
prescriptive or reglementary period, to pay the filing fees for her
permissive counterclaim
1) It has not been alleged by FGU and there is nothing to show that Alday
has attempted to evade the payment of the proper docket fees
2) Sun Insurance Office v. Hon. Asuncion: Rule on the payment of
filing fees
a. It isthe payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court
with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where
the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of
the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period.
b. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party
claims and similar pleadings.
c. Alday's claims for damages, allegedly suffered as a result of FGUs
filing of its complaint, are compulsory
i. Thus, there is no need for need for her to pay docket fees for this
counterclaim

4. W/N RTC should have declared FGU in default for having failed to answer
Aldays counterclaim. NO
a. With regard to the permissive counterclaim, there is no need to file an
answer until Alday has paid the prescribed docket fees for only then shall
the court acquire jurisdiction over such claim
b. With regard to the compulsory counterclaim, there is no need to file an
answer since it is inseparable from the claims of FGU
ii. If FGU were to answer, it would merely result in FGU pleading the same
facts raised in its complaint

DECISION
CA decision MODIFIED.
Petitioners counterclaim REINSTATED.
RTC ORDERED to require Petitioner to pay prescribed docket fees for her
counterclaim after ascertaining that the applicable prescriptive period has not
yet set in