damage to property. Two cases were filed, criminal & civil. The crim.

Civil Procedure: Rule 6 case was dismissed beech. the parties entered into an amicable

Pleadings settlement. The civil case continued but resp. was declared in default
for failure to file an answer. What respondent did was merely to send a

(Substantial Requirements) letter to the Clerk of Court informing the ct. about the amicable
settlement.
Definition Held: The trial ct. should have considered the letter as a responsive
pleading even if it lacks the formalities required by law. The letter
Rule 6, Sec. 1. contains an affirmative defense, i.e. mutual settlement w/c, if proven
in preliminary hearing would constitute a meritorious defense barring
Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and
pet. fr. recovery. Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be liberally
defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate
construed in order that the litigant may have ample opportunity to
judgment
prove their respective claims & to prevent possible denial of
substantive due process. Litigations should be decided on the merits
not merely on technicality.
Allowed Pleadings

Rule 6, Sec. 2
How allegations made
The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counter-claim, cross- In General
claim, third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or complaint – in –
intervention. Rule 8, Sec. 1

The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
asserting a claim against him. concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting
An answer may be responded to by a reply. the statement of mere evidentiary facts.

If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof

and their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated.
Liberal construction
Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 638 (’93) Capacity
Facts: Counsel for petitioner: Sir Luigi, este, Camacho pala) A
vehicular accident occurred resulting in respondent filing a case for Rule 8, Sec. 4
1
Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority
of a prty to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party,
must be averred. A prty desiring to raise an issue as to the legal
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in
a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall
include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader’s knowledge.
Rule 8, Sec. 5
In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting the
fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent,
knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may be averred
generally.
Condition of mind

Rule 8, Sec. 5 supra.

Alternative claims and defenses

Rule 8, Sec. 2
A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense
alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense
or in separate causes of action or defenses. When two or more
statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made
independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient
by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements.
Judgments
Rule 8, Sec. 6
In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court,
judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is
sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth the
matter showing jurisdiction to render it.

Conditions precedent
Official Documents
Rule 8, Sec. 3
Rule 8, Sec. 9
In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence
of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient. In pleading an official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver
that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law.

Fraud and Mistake

2
Complaint
Defined and in general
Rule 6, Sec. 3
The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff’s cause or causes of
action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must
be stated in the complaint.
Tantuico v. Republic, 204 SCRA 428 (’91)
Facts: A case was filed by the PCGG vs. the Marcoses & Tantuico, the
latter on the theory that he collaborated & aided the Marcoses in
concealing the ill-gotten wealth. Tantuico filed a motion for a bill of
particulars. The SolGen opposed the motion saying that the matters
sought by Tantuico are evidentiary in nature & that the complaint was
sufficient as it contains the essential elements of a cause of action.
Held: A complaint is defined as a concise statement of the ultimate
facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause or causes of action. Its office or
purpose is to inform the defendant clearly & definitely of the claims
made vs. him so that he may be prepared to meet the issues at
trial. The complaint should inform the defendant all the material facts
on w/c the plaintiffs rely to support his demand The complaint should
inform the defendant of all the material facts on w/c the plaintiff relies
to support his demand; it should state the theory of a cause of action
w/c forms the bases of the plaintiffs claim of liability. The rules on
pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the first, the “ultimate facts”,
& the second, the “evidentiary facts.” The term “ultimate facts” as
used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means the essential facts
constituting the plaintiffs cause of action.
TEST: A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out w/o leaving the
statement of the cause of action insufficient….
Ultimate facts are important & substantial facts w/c either directly
form the basis of the primary right & duty, or w/c directly make up the
wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer
to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by w/c
these material elements are to be established. It refers to principal,
determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of w/c, the entire
cause of action rests. “Evidentiary facts” are those facts w/c are
necessary for determination of the ultimate facts; they are the
premises upon w/c conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
Where the complaint states ultimate facts that constitute the three (3)
essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (1) the legal right of
the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, & (3) the
act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal right, the
complaint states a cause of action, otherwise, the complaint must
succumb to a motion to dismiss on that ground of failure to state a
cause of action. However, where the allegations of the complaint are
vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions, the proper recourse
would be, not a motion to dismiss, but a motion for a bill of particulars.
Allegations
In general
Rule 8, Sec. 1
Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitting
the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
3
If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof shares. Did not show how they acquired the right, the extent of its
and their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated. exercise & amount of shareholdings that they are entitled to.

Metropolitan Bank v. Quilts, 222 SCRA 486 (’93) Capacity of parties

Facts: The property of Quilts was mortgaged to Metrobank to secure a
personal loan of its pres. Dizon. Quilts asked for the cancellation of the Rule 8, Sec. 4
mortgage on the ground that Dizon had no authority to mortgage the
Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority
property. Metrobank refused. Quilts filed an action vs. Metrobank for
of a prty to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
the annulment & cancellation of the mortgage. Metrobank moved to
existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party,
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action as the
must be averred. A prty desiring to raise an issue as to the legal
complaint merely contained a single par. alleging that Metrobank
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in
committed illegal acts vs. Quilts.
a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall
Held: The complaint filed vs. Metrobank does not contain sufficient
include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
COA. The complaint expresses legal conclusions & not averments or
pleader’s knowledge.
allegations of ultimate facts. The ultimate facts upon w/c such
conclusions rest must be alleged. In CAB, the bare allegations neither
establishes any right or COA on part of the plaintiff.
Actions based upon a document

Mathay v. Consolidated Bank, 58 SCRA
Facts: This is the classic case of the class suit filed by Mathay
vs. Consolidated Bank. Mathay & Co. averred in the complaint that
they were denied the right to subscribe shares in the Bank. All in all,
the complaint filed by Mathay contained 6 COA’s .
Held: Bare allegations that one is entitled to something is an allegation
of a conclusion. Such kind of allegation adds nothing to the complaint
it being necessary to plead specifically the facts upon w/c such
conclusion is founded. In CAB, the pet. did not show their
qualifications to being stockholders nor their right to subscribe the
Rule 8, Sec. 7
Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or
document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set
forth in the pleading and the original or a copy thereof shall be
attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a
part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in
the pleading.
Answer

4
Defined and in general
Rule 6, Sec. 4
An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his
defenses.
Types of Defenses
Negative
Rule 6, Sec. 5(a)
Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or
facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause or
causes of action.
How alleged, generally
Rule 8, Sec. 10
A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of
which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth that
substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his
denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only a part of an averment,
he shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only
the remainder. Where a defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made
in the complaint, he shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a
denial.
Capacity of parties
Rule 8, Sec. 4
Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority
of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party,
must be averred. A prty desiring to raise an issue as to the legal
existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in
a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall
include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader’s knowledge.
Genuineness of document
Rule 8, Sec. 8
When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached t o the corresponding pleading as provided in the
preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the
instrument shall be deemed unless the adverse party, under oath
specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts;
but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party
does not appear to be party to the instrument or when compliance with
an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.
Donato v. CA
5
Controversy over a parcel of land allegedly sold to defendants by
Rarang by virtue of special power of attorney executed the by the
mother (deceased) of plaintiffs. Trial court held in favor of plaintiffs
on the ground that defendants failed to present evidence to prove
genuineness of the power of attorney. CA Affirmed.
Supreme Court held that while R.8, Sec. 8 provides for rule on implied
admission of the genuineness and due execution of a document
subject of an action/defense, one exception is when the adverse party
does not appear to be a party to the instrument. In this case, their
plaintiffs were mere witnesses to the power of attorney in
question. Besides, the document should not be afforded presumption
of genuineness and due execution in view of the discrepancies in its
execution.
Negative pregnant
PHILAMGEN v. Sweet Lines
Controversy over several shipments of chemicals aboard the vessel
owned by Sweet Lines which were delivered damaged and lacking in
number to plaintiff PHILAMGEN. Sweet Lines argued that the action has
prescribed since the claim for damages were not presented within the
period stipulated in the bills of lading. PHILAMGEN contended that the
bills of lading were not presented in evidence, therefore, since the
tenor and existence of the stipulations were not established, it was
inconceivable how they can comply therewith. Trial court held in favor
of PHILAMGEN but CA reversed.
Supreme Court held that the action has already prescribed. Besides,
plaintiff’s failure to specifically deny the existence, genuineness and
due execution of the instruments amounted too an admission.
PHILAMGEN’s denial has procedural earmarks of a “negative pregnant”
which is a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in
the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. Such defense
is in effect an admission of the averment. Thus, while they objected to
the stipulation in the bills of lading as being contrary to policy,
existence of the bills were nevertheless impliedly admitted.
Affirmative
Rule 6, Sec. 5(b)
(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.
Periods to plead
Rule 11, Sec. 1
The defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within 15 days
after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the
court.
Rule 11, Sec. 2
6
Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity and service of
summons is made on the government official designated by law to
receive the same, the answer shall be filed within 30 days after receipt
of summons by such entity.
Rule 11, Sec. 3
Where the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of right,
the defendant shall answer the same within 15 days after being served
with a copy thereof.
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the
amended complaint within 10 days from notice of the order admitting
the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the
amended complaint if no new answer is filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim,
amended cross-claim, amended third (fourth, etc) party complaint, and
amended complaint-in-intervention.
Waiver of defenses
Rule 9, Sec. 2
A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-claim, not set up shall be barred.
Director of Lands v. CA, 106 SCRA 426 (’81)
Facts: Resp. filed an application for confirmation of imperfect
title. The Dir. of Lands opposed. The trial ct. ruled in favor of
resp. On appeal, the Dir. raised the argument that the award to resp.
is erroneous on ground of res judicata. The lots were already declared
public lots in a cadastral proceeding, it cannot be awarded to the
private resp.
Held: The failure of the Dir. to raise in the proceedings before the trial
ct. to interpose his objection nor set up the defense of res judicata
constitutes procedural infirmity w/c cannot be cured on appeal. All
defenses not interposed in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are
deemed waived. It cannot be pleaded for the first time or on appeal.
Counterclaims
LECTURE ON CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS:
L: are all counterclaims that are not compulsory permissive?
A: No; permissive counterclaims need not arise from same transaction
or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s
claim
Compulsory counterclaim: need not pay docket fees since ancillary to
main case
Permissive counterclaim: need to pay docket fees since has lfe
independent of transaction in main case
Apply Logical Relationship Test: arising out of same transaction
If there is duplication of effort and time, then compulsory counterclaim
ROC: if counterclaim only for sum of money less juridical limit, within
RTC jurisdiction via compulsory/permissive counterclaim
7
Crossclaims always compulsory since arise from same transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint. Mandatory to
raise it or else barred forever
GO V CA
L: Go did not sue Lim since business partners or didn’t want to spend
more, etc.
SC wanted Go to sue Lim, wondered why?
L: see that SC not acquainted with business practices
Test: if P chose to sue only one P, then the other P can be joined as
party
Lim could have been necessary party thus Clover v Go
Go can file 3rd party complaint v. Lim
L: Do all 3rd party complaints arise from the same transaction or
question of law?
A: No eg. Insurance and torts
Test: if 3rd party D can be subrogated for D and D can raise same
defense (Rule 14)
PASCUAL V BAUTISTA
L: SC did not rule on W/N 3rd party complaint propert since not put in
issue. Here, 3rd-party complaint, since ancillary, then left behind, not
carried with main cause of action on appeal (Differentiate from
REPUBLIC V CENTRAL SURETY where CA acquired jurisdiction since
Central Surety appealed) Since Flores did not appeal, CA did not
acquire appellate jurisdiction over him
Defined and in general
Rule 6, Sec. 6
A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against
an opposing party.
Rule 6, Sec. 7
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 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.
BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 (’93)
Facts: Does the dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of
plaintiff at pre-trial upon motion of the defendant carry w/ it the
dismissal of compulsory counterclaim? In CAB, the plaintiff did not
appear at pre-trial, the defendant moved for the dismissal of the
8
complaint. The same was granted. Now, the defendant moves for an
adjudication of his compulsory counterclaim.
Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim is also dismissed. There are
several requirements of a compulsory counterclaim:
 It arises out or is necessarily. connected w/ the transaction or
occurrence that is the subj. matter of the opposing parties claim.
 It does not require the presence of third parties of whom the ct.
cannot acquire jurisdiction.
 The trial ct. has jurisdiction to entertain the same. The test of
compulsoriness is : WON the same evidence to sustain it would
refute the plaintiff’s cause of action.
In CAB, the compulsory counterclaim cannot remain pending for
independent adjudication. The CC is auxiliary to the proceeding in the
original suit & merely derives its jurisdictional support fr. the orig.
case. If the ct. has no or loses jurisdiction over the main case, it has
no jurisdxn over the comp. counterclaim. In CAB, the ct. has lost
jurisdxn. over the main case by virtue of its dismissal upon motion by
the defendant.
Reyes v. CA, 38 SCRA 138 (’71)
Facts: Reyes were lessees of a bldg. owned by Kalaw. Kalaw sought
the ejectment of Reyes. Reyes filed an action w/ City Court for prel.
injunction & Kalaw filed a counterclaim for damages. The CA
ultimately awarded temperate damages in favor of Kalaw.
Held: The award of temp. damages is in error. the damages
contemplated in a forcible entry & detainer cases like the one at bar
means rents & reasonable compensation or for use of the property
excluding profits w/c might be received. The issue in this kind of suit is
merely possession. In CAB, while the damages arose out of the same
transaction, these are not CC’s bec. they exceed the jurisdiction of the
inferior ct.. The rule on bars to cc, meaning the counterclaim cannot
be set up in a difference. case if not set up in the main case, applies
only when the inferior ct. involved has jurisdiction over the claim.
The reason for barring cc not set up in an orig. case is to avoid
multiplicity of suits & to dispose of the whole matter in controversy in
one action & adjustments of defendants demand by counterclaim.
Maceda v. CA, 176 SCRA 440 (’89)
Facts: Three ejectment cases were filed in the MTC vs.
Maceda. Maceda set up a counterclaim amounting to 240,000. The RTC
granted Maceda’s counterclaim. The CA denied the grant on appeal.
Held: The CA correctly ruled that the MTC did not have original
jurisdiction over the counterclaim as it exceeds 20,000,
correspondingly, the RTC could not have appellate jurisdiction over the
claim. Thus, the award to Maceda is invalid for lack of
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the MTC in a civil action is limited to a
demand that does not exceed 20,000 exclusive of interests & costs but
inclusive of damages of whatever kind. A counterclaim in a municipal
or city ct. beyond that jurisdictional limit may be pleaded only by
way defense to weaken the plaintiff’s claim but not to obtain
affirmative relief.
How raised
Included in answer
Rule 6, Sec. 9
A counterclaim may be asserted against an original counterclaimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
9
Rule 11, Sec. 8
A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has
at the time he filed his answer shall be contained therein.
After answer
Rule 6, Sec. 9 supra.
Rule 11, sec. 9
A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or was acquired
by a party after serving his pleading may, with the permission of the
court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental
pleading before judgment.
Rule 11, Sec. 10
When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim through
oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires,
he may, by leave of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by
amendment before judgment.
In criminal actions
Facts: Shafer is the owner of a car involved in an accident. A case
was filed vs. him for reckless imprudence. Shafer filed a third party
complaint impleading his insurer. The TPC was dismissed upon motion
by the ins. co. on the ground that Shafer has to pay first & found
liable before the insurer could be made to pay the
claim. Shafer alleges that the dismissal of the TPC amounts to a denial
or curtailment of his right to defend himself in the civil aspect of the
case.
Held: The lower ct. erred in dismissing the TPC on the ground that
there is no COA vs. the ins. co. There is no need on the part of the
insured to wait for the decision of the trial ct. finding him guilty of
reckless imprudence. The occurrence of the injury to third party
immediately gave rise to the liability of the insurer. A third party
complaint is a device allowed by the ROC by w/c the defendant can
bring into the original suit a party vs. whom he will have a claim for
indemnity or remuneration as a result of a liability established vs. him
in an original suit. TPC’s are allowed to minimize the number of
lawsuits established vs. him to avoid the necessity. of two or more
lawsuits involving the same subj. matter.
Javier v. IAC, 171 SCRA 605 (’89)
Facts: A case for violation of BP 22 was filed vs. resp. Resp. on his
part filed a separate civil action in another ct. for damages alleging
that the check was issued through fraud & deception practiced upon
him by the pet. the pet. filed a motion to dismiss the second case on
grounds of lack of jurisdiction & litis pendentia. The same was denied.

Held: The lower ct. should dismiss the second case for damages. As the
Rule 111, Sec. 1
civil action was not reserved by the pet. in the orig. case, it is deemed
Rule 119, Sec. 3 impliedly instituted w/ the crim. case in the RTC in accordance. w/
Rule 111 Sec. 1. It was before the RTC where resp. could have
Shafer v. RTC Judge, 167 SCRA 386 (’88) explained why he had issued the check. The civil action filed by resp.
based on the same act should be deemed filed in the same RTC too. He

10
could have done this by way of a counterclaim for damages for the
alleged deception of the pet. In fact, the counterclaim is compulsory &
could have been also set up as an affirmative defense.
Kinds of counterclaims
Compulsory
Rule 6, Sec. 7, supra.
Rule 9, Sec. 2, supra.
Meliton v. CA, 216 SCRA 485 (’92)
Facts: Ziga filed a complaint adjacent Meliton for rescission of a
contract of lease. Meliton answered w/ counterclaims. Ziga filed an
MTD & the same was granted. The CC of Meliton was dismissed w/o
prejudice on the ground that the docket fees were not paid, the ct. did
not acquire jurisdiction over the counterclaim. Meliton instituted a
separate. civil action for his counterclaim but the same was dismissed
on the ground that his claims are compulsory & should have been set up
in the case filed vs. him by Ziga. Meliton’s failure to do so amounted to
a bar to a filing of a subsequent case based on the same ground.
Held: While it is true that the counterclaim of Meliton satisfies the
requisites of a compulsory counterclaim, in CAB, the SC allowed Meliton
to file a separate. civil action on the counterclaim. The SC held that
Sec. 4 of Rule 9 is not applicable beech. 1) Meliton set up the CC in
the prior case but the same was dismissed. 2) The prior case was
adjudicated not on the merits so that res judicata would not
lie. 3) the first counterclaim was dismissed by the RTC on the ground
of LOJ. 4) In the RTC order, there was a reservation for the filing of a
separate. case based on the counterclaim.
The lower ct. in the prior case erred in dismissing the counterclaim for
non-payment of docket fees. The lesson of Manchester provides that
payment of docket fees for purposes of assuming jurisdiction over the
claim is necessary only for permissive counterclaims & does not apply
for compulsory counterclaims like the one at bar.
TEST OF COMPULSORINESS:
Existence of a logical relationship between the claim in the complaint &
the counterclaim. Where conducting separate trials of the respective
claims would entail substantial duplication of effort & time & involves
many of the same factual & legal issues.
Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425 (’75)
Facts: This is the 30++ page case w/c was so diligently digested by Miss
Secretary Lourie but was not discussed in class (Ang bitter!). Upon
motion of the plaintiff, 4 of the 6 defendants were declared in default
while the case vs. the remaining two were dismissed upon motion by
the plaintiff.
Held: The respondent judge erred in dismissing the 2 defendants fr.
the case. The respondent judge disregarded the existence of a
counterclaim w/c the judge earlier declared to be compulsory in
nature. A counterclaim is compulsory nature if it arose out of or is
necessarily connected w/ the occurrence that is the subject matter of
the plaintiff’s claim. It is compulsory not only bec. the same evidence
to sustain it will also refute the cause of action alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint but also bec. fr. its very nature it is obvious that the
counterclaim cannot remain pending for independent adjudication of
the ct.. ( see Rule 17 Sec. 2 )
Permissive
Remedies
For failure to raise
11
Rule 9, Sec. 2, supra.
Visayan Packing v. Reparations Commission, 155 SCRA 542 (’87)
Facts: REPACOM sought to collect vs. Visayan. Visayan instituted an
action for declaratory relief alleging that the contract bet. them is
ambiguous w/ respect to its failure to define clearly the terms of
payment. REPACOM then filed an ordinary civil action for
collection. Visayan moved to dismiss the collection suit on the ground
of LCOA.
Held: The separate. collection suit should have been dismissed & set
up as a CC in the declaratory relief suit filed by Visayan packing by way
of an amended answer. In CAB, the actions proceeded independently &
were decided on the merits. However, under the circ. where the
length of time the case has been pending, it would be violative to subs.
justice to pronounce the proceedings in the collection suit totally
defective for breach of the rule on compulsory counterclaim. Rules of
Procedure are after all laid down to attain justice & technicalities
cannot prevail over substance.
Oversight, inadvertence, excusable neglect, et al
Rule 11, Sec. 10, supra.
BA Finance v. Co, 224 SCRA 163 (’93)
Facts: Does the dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of
plaintiff at pre-trial upon motion of the defendant carry w/ it the
dismissal of compulsory counterclaim? In CAB, the plaintiff did not
appear at pre-trial, the defendant moved for the dismissal of the
complaint. The same was granted. Now, the defendant moves for an
adjudication of his compulsory counterclaim.
Held: YES. Compulsory counterclaim is also dismissed. There are
several requirements of a compulsory counterclaim:
 It arises out or is necessarily. connected w/ the transaction or
occurrence that is the subj. matter of the opposing parties claim.
 It does not require the presence of third parties of whom the ct.
cannot acquire jurisdiction.
 The trial ct. has jurisdiction to entertain the same. The test of
compulsoriness is : WON the same evidence to sustain it would
refute the plaintiff’s cause of action.
In CAB, the compulsory counterclaim cannot remain pending for
independent adjudication. The CC is auxiliary to the proceeding in the
original suit & merely derives its jurisdictional support fr. the orig.
case. If the ct. has no or loses jurisdiction over the main case, it has
no jurisdxn over the comp. counterclaim. In CAB, the ct. has lost
jurisdxn. over the main case by virtue of its dismissal upon motion by
the defendant.
In case main action fails
For failure to raise permissive counterclaims
Answer to counterclaim
In general
Rule 6, Sec. 4, supra.
Period to plead
Rule 11, Sec. 4
An counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within 10 days from
service.
Reply
Defined and in general
12
Rule 6, Sec. 10 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,
A reply is a pleading, the office of which is to deny, or allege facts in called the third (fourth, etc)-party defendant, for contribution,
denial or avoidance of new matters alleged by way of defense in the indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s
answer and thereby join or make issue as to such new matters. If a claim.
party does not file such reply, all the new matters alleged in the
answer are deemed controverted. Go v. CA, 224 SCRA 143 (’93)
Facts: Clover delivered denim garments to Go but the latter refused
If a plaintiff wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new to pay on the ground that he received the goods fr. Lim to whom he
matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an amended or already made payments. Lim was made a witness for Go instead of
supplemental complaint. being impleaded as a third party def.
Held: Lim should have been impleaded as a third party def. Go should
When required
still pay. A third party complaint is a claim that a def. may w/ leave
Rule 6, sec. 10, supra. of ct. file vs. a third person not party to the action called third party
def. for cont. indemnity, subrogation or any other relief in respect to
Challenge due authenticity of documents opponent’s claim. In CAB, if payments to Lim were true, then Go
could have impleaded him as a TPD for relief vs. Clover’s claim vs. him.
Rule 8, Sec. 8, supra. Pascual v. Bautista, 33 SCRA 301 (’70)
Facts: The issue involved in this case is the nature of a third party
Usury
complaint. Is a third party complaint arising fr. the same transaction or
occurrence a separate action fr. the main complaint?
Rule 9, sec. 1
Held: A TPC is similar to a cross-claim in that a TPC plaintiff seeks to
Period to plead recover fr. another person some relief w/ respect to the opposing
party’s claim but it differs fr. a cross-claim in that in cross-claims, the
Rule 11, Sec. 6 third party is already impleaded in the main action while in TPC, the
def. seeks to implead a third party not yet include in the main
A reply may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading
action. A counterclaim does not depend upon the main claim but rests
responded to.
on WON the claim is based or related to the same transaction. A TPC,
the relation must be to the claim, to the COA & not to the transaction
Third/Fourth Party Complaint
fr. w/c the claim arises.
Defined
Balbastro v. CA, 48 SCRA 232 (’72)
Rule 6, sec. 11

13
Facts: There are two persons contesting the right to receive rental
payments of Balbastro. the Latter filed an action for interpleader &
consignation vs. the two claimants. One claimant, Fernandez then filed
a third [party complaint vs. Balbastro for refusing to pay the rents to
him. Balbastro moved to dismiss the TPC but the RTC & CA denied the
motion.
Held: A TPC has the following requisites.
 The complaint should assert a derivative/ secondary claim for relief
fr. the third party defendant.
 The third party should not be a party to the action, otherwise, the
claim should be a counterclaim or cross-claim
 Claim vs. the third party def. must be based on the pltf. claim vs.
the orig. def.
Thus, citing the case of Capayas, “ the test to determine WON to allow
a TPC is WON it arises out of the same transaction on w/c pltf’s claim is
based o retired party’s claim, though arising out of a different
transaction or contract is connected w/ pltf’s claim. Absent a nexus
between third party def. & third party pltf. showing strong evidence of
a secondary or derivative liability of former in favor of the latter, no
third party complaint may be allowed.
However, in the CAB, in lieu w/ the policy of avoiding multiplicity of
suits, the SC allowed the TPC of Fernandez.
Republic v. Central Surety, 25 SCRA 641 (’68)
Facts: Rep. filed an action vs. Central Surety for forfeiture of the bond
it issued when Po Kee Kam, a def. in CID proceedings failed to appear
. The Surety filed a TPC vs. Po Kee Kam on ground that the latter
executed an indemnity agreement in favor of the surety. The TC
dismissed the TPC on the ground that the 3rd party claim is only 6,000.
Held: A TPC is an ancillary suit w/c depends on the jurisdiction of the
ct. over the main action. Jurisdiction over the main action embraces
all the incidental matters arising therefr. or connected therew/,
otherwise there would be split jurisdiction. The TPC is a continuation
of the main action the purpose of w/c is to seek contribution or any
other relief in resp. to opponents claim. Thus, regardless of LOJ over
the amount in TPC, when ct. has jurisdxn. over main action, it has
jurisdxn. over the TPC.
In TPC, the defendant sue in capacity he is being sued w/ resp. to pltf.
claim in the main action. the def. cannot compel the pltf. to implead
the third party def. There must also be privity of contract in relation
to the property in litigation.
TEST: there must be a showing that such third party is or might be
liable to the def. or pltf. for all or part of the claim vs. the def.
– WON it arises out of the same transaction on w/c pltf’s claim is based.
( CAVEAT)
The ct. must wait before the 3rd party def. files his answer before
proceeding to trial since before the answer, the case is not yet ready
for trials as issues have not yet been joined.
Remedies when denied
Appeal, De Dios v. Balagot, 20 SCRA 950
Facts: This is an action for recovery of possession of land filed by De
Dios v. Balagot. the latter filed a third party complaint fr. his alleged
seller of the lot. The TPC was denied.
Held: The remedy for an order denying motion to file TPC is
APPEAL. An order disallowing TPC is appealable to enforce the
vendor’s warranty vs. eviction since it leaves no other alternative to
enforce such warranty. Remember Sales, where the vendee must file
14
an action vs. the vendor to make him liable for breach of warranty vs.
eviction. ( Art. 1559 CC- the vendee may do this in two ways. 1) As a
co-defendant. 2) As a third party def.) Source:
Notes from Anzie – Girl:
The appeal would finally dispose of Balagot’s rights to enforce the University of the Philippines
warranty.

Answer to third/fourth party complaint

In general

Rule 6, Sec. 13

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’s claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a counterclaim
against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter’s claim against the
third-party plaintiff.

Time to plead

Rule 11, Sec. 5

The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be

governed by the same rule as the answer to the complaint.

Extension of time to plead

Rule 11, Sec. 11

Upon motion and on such terms as may be just, the court may extend
the time to plead as provided in these Rules.

The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other pleading
to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.
15