 Skip to navigation

 Skip to main content

 Skip to primary sidebar
 Skip to secondary sidebar
 Skip to footer

PHILIPPINE LAW REVIEWERS

 HOME
 DIGESTS
 REVIEWERS
 JOKES
 CONTACT ME

Blog Archives
Civil Procedure: Rule 6 Pleadings (Substantial Requirements)
OCT 2

Posted by Magz
Definition

Rule 6, Sec. 1.

Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment

Allowed Pleadings

Rule 6, Sec. 2

The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counter-claim, 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.

Liberal construction
Gerales v. CA, 218 SCRA 638 (’93)
Facts: Counsel for petitioner: Sir Luigi, este, Camacho pala) A vehicular accident occurred resulting in respondent filing
a case for damage to property. Two cases were filed, criminal & civil. The crim. case was dismissed beech. the parties
entered into an amicable 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 letter to the Clerk of Court informing the ct. about the amicable
settlement.
Held: The trial ct. should have considered the letter as a responsive pleading even if it lacks the formalities required by
law. The letter contains an affirmative defense, i.e. mutual settlement w/c, if proven in preliminary hearing would
constitute a meritorious defense barring pet. fr. recovery. Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be liberally
construed in order that the litigant may have ample opportunity to prove their respective claims & to prevent possible
denial of substantive due process. Litigations should be decided on the merits not merely on technicality.

How allegations made

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.

If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be clearly and
concisely stated.

Capacity

Rule 8, Sec. 4

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.

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.

Conditions precedent

Rule 8, Sec. 3

In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all conditions precedent shall be sufficient.

Fraud and Mistake

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.

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.

Official Documents

Rule 8, Sec. 9

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.

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.

If a defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their applicability to him shall be clearly and
concisely stated.

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

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 mortgage on the ground that Dizon had no authority to mortgage the property. Metrobank
refused. Quilts filed an action vs. Metrobank for the annulment & cancellation of the mortgage. Metrobank moved to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action as the complaint merely contained a single par. alleging that
Metrobank committed illegal acts vs. Quilts.
Held: The complaint filed vs. Metrobank does not contain sufficient COA. The complaint expresses legal conclusions &
not averments or 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.

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 shares. Did not show how
they acquired the right, the extent of its exercise & amount of shareholdings that they are entitled to.

Capacity of parties

Rule 8, Sec. 4

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.

Actions based upon a document

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
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

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

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

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 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.

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

Rule 111, Sec. 1

Rule 119, Sec. 3

Shafer v. RTC Judge, 167 SCRA 386 (’88)

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 civil action was not reserved by the pet. in the
orig. case, it is deemed 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 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 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

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

Rule 6, Sec. 10

A reply is a pleading, the office 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 a 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.

When required

Rule 6, sec. 10, supra.

Challenge due authenticity of documents

Rule 8, Sec. 8, supra.

Usury

Rule 9, sec. 1

Period to plead

Rule 11, Sec. 6

A reply may be filed within 10 days from service of the pleading responded to.

Third/Fourth Party Complaint

Defined

Rule 6, sec. 11

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 opponent’s claim.

Go v. CA, 224 SCRA 143 (’93)

Facts: Clover delivered denim garments to Go but the latter refused to pay on the ground that he received the goods fr.
Lim to whom he already made payments. Lim was made a witness for Go instead of being impleaded as a third party def.
Held: Lim should have been impleaded as a third party def. Go should still pay. A third party complaint is a claim that
a def. may w/ leave 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 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.
Pascual v. Bautista, 33 SCRA 301 (’70)
Facts: The issue involved in this case is the nature of a third party complaint. Is a third party complaint arising fr. the
same transaction or occurrence a separate action fr. the main complaint?
Held: A TPC is similar to a cross-claim in that a TPC plaintiff seeks to 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 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 action. A
counterclaim does not depend upon the main claim but rests 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 fr. w/c the claim arises.
Balbastro v. CA, 48 SCRA 232 (’72)
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 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.)

The appeal would finally dispose of Balagot’s rights to enforce the 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.