ALILING

GROUP 2: ANSWER
ALMERON
ALPUERTO
ARCEO
ATAZAR
CASIMIRO
MERCADO
PESTAÑO
SANTIAGO
SOTTO
Rule 6:Sections 4 to Section 7
Answers, Defenses, &
Counterclaims
 Answer: Its Nature and
Purpose, Parts and Form

3
 ANSWER
• An answer in legal proceedings is
the defendant's formal response to
the plaintiff's claims.
• It sets forth the legal proceedings
and right to due process of the
defendant is being exercised.
— An answer is a pleading in which
a defending party sets forth his
defenses. Rule 6, Section 4.
 ANSWER GENERAL PURPOSE
• An answer in legal proceedings is
• The general purpose of an answer in
the defendant's formal response to
legal proceedings is to enable the
the plaintiff's claims.
defendant to respond to the
• It sets forth the legal proceedings
allegations made by the plaintiff in
and right to due process of the
the complaint.
defendant is being exercised. • It allows the defendant to admit,
• — An answer is a pleading in
deny, or state a lack of knowledge
which a defending party sets forth
regarding each allegation, and to
his defenses. Rule 6, Section 4.
assert any affirmative defenses,
counterclaims, or requests for relief.
**IN THE COURT OF (Court's Name)**

**Case No: (Case Number)**

**Plaintiff's Name, Plaintiff,**

**vs.**

**Defendant's Name, Defendant.**

**ANSWER TO COMPLAINT**

1. In response to paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant admits/denies the

allegations contained therein.
 DEFENSE
DEFINITION AND TYPES OF DEFENSES

7
 DEFINITION
• Defense is the response of
the defendant to a
complaint filed against
them. The defending party
can present defenses in the
answer that are either
negative or affirmative.
 DEFENSE TYPES OF DEFENSES
• Defense is the response of
the defendant to a Two Kinds of Defenses that may
complaint filed against be set forth in the Answer:
them. The defending party 1. Negative defenses;
can present defenses in the
answer that are either
and
negative or affirmative. 2. Affirmative defenses
 NEGATIVE DEFENSE

Specific Denial
1. Absolute Denial
2. Partial Denial
3. Denial by disavowal of
knowledge
N E G AT I V E D E F E N S E
Specific Denial
1. Absolute Denial
2. Partial Denial
3. Denial by disavowal
of knowledge
N E G AT I V E D E F E N S E S
Insufficient Denials or
Denials amounting to an
Admission
1. General denial
2. Denial in the form of a
negative pregnant
 A F F I R M AT I V E D E F E N S E S

It 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 or her. (Sec.
5(b), Rule 6, ROC, as amended)

A F F I R M AT I V E D E F E N S E S
-It 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 or her. (Sec.
5(b), Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
A F F I R M AT I V E D E F E N S E S
The Affirmative Defenses includes:
1. Fraud
2. Statute of limitations
3. Release
4. Payment
5. Illegality
6. Statute of Frauds
7. Estoppel
8. Former Recovery
9. Discharge in Bankruptcy; and
10. Any other matter by way of
confession and avoidance.
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Affirmative defenses may also includes grounds for the dismissal of
complaint, specifically, that the court:
1. Has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2. That there is another action pending between the same parties for the
same cause (litis pendencia); or

3. That the action is barred by prior judgement. ( Res Judicata);

4. Prescription
NEGATIVE DEFENSE
Absolute, Partial, and Lack of Knowledge
 Rule 6, Section 5 (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.
Specific Denial (Rule 8, Sec. 10, Rules of Court)
SEC. 10. Specific denial. — The defendant must specify each material
allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and, whenever
practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters which he will rely
upon to support his denial. Where a pleader desires to deny only a part or a
qualification of an averment, he shall specify so much of it as is true and
material and shall deny only the remainder. Where the 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.
 3 Types of Specific Denial
1. Absolute Denial - The defendant specifically denies each material
allegation of fact the truth he does not admit.
2. Partial Denial - The defendant denies only a part of an averment:
Defendant admits only a part of the allegation and denies the remainder.
3. Denial by disavowal of knowledge - The defendant specifically denies
the averment material on the basis that the defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to believe the truth. ( must be done
in good faith)
NOTE: A denial that doesn't fit into one of three specific types of denials is
considered an admission. EXCEPT on Unliquidated Damages.
 Insufficient Denials or Denials amounting to an
Admission (Rule 8, Sec. 11, Rules of Court)

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed

admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than
those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be
deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of
usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are
deemed admitted if not denied under oath. (1a, R9)
 Specific Denial with an OATH
General Rule - An action or defense founded upon a written
instrument or attached thereto requires a specific denial under oath;
otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument is
deemed denied.
Exception - An oath is not required when:
• The adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument
• When compliance with an order for an inspection of the original
instrument instrument is refused.
 NEGATIVE PREGNANT
Negative Pregnant - An allegation which denies the fact but implies
and admission.

• It is a negative implying also an affirmative and which, although is

stated in negative form, really admits the allegations to which it
relates. (Riano, 2019)
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Fraud, Statute of Fraud, Illegality
 AFRIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FRAUD)

Fraud is defined in Article 1338 of the Civil Code as: fraud

when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the
contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a
contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to.
Sample Elements: a false representation in reference to a
material fact made with knowledge of its falsity with the
intent to deceive action is taken in reliance upon the
representation.
 TWO TYPES OF FRAUD:
1. Dolo causante or causal fraud (Article 1338) is a deception of a
serious character employed by one party and without which the other party
would not have entered into a contract. This is when fraud is used to
induce a person to agree to a contract. This kind of fraud is a ground for
annulment of the contract plus damages

Example: There was an ad offering work to female college graduates to

work as English tutors to rich Hong Kong families but in truth that was
recruitment to work in a red light district or pleasure district.
 TWO TYPES OF FRAUD:
2. Dolo incedente or incidental fraud (Article 1144) those which are not
serious in character and without which the other party would still have
entered into the contract.

Example: Anne entered into a contract to deliver 500 cavans of rice to

Noel with a price per cavan of 1,300 pesos, Anne delivered 400 cavans but
withheld the delivery of the remaining, stating that the price went up and
priced the rice to 1,600 per cavan. The fraud here is dolo incidental because
it is committed to the existing contract.
 STATUTE OF FRAUD:
The Statute Frauds embodied in Article 1403, paragraph (2), of the Civil
Code requires certain contracts enumerated therein to be evidenced by
some note or memorandum in order to be enforceable. The term "Statute
of Frauds" is descriptive of statutes which require certain classes of
contracts to be in writing.

Those that do not comply under the Statute of Frauds (The items covered
must appear in writing otherwise it cannot be enforced in courts.)
 STATUTEOF FRAUD:
• An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one
(1) year;
• A special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage
of another
• An agreement for the sale of goods/chattels at a price not less
than P500
• Sale of real property
• An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year.
Those covered under the Statute of Frauds refer only to executory
contracts, and does not refer to execute contracts already.
 ILLEGALITY
Illegality, or contravention of public policy, is an affirmative
defense that can be raised in breach of contract cases. The doctrine
of illegality dictates that a party cannot recover for the breach of an
unlawful contract.
A contract is unenforceable on grounds of illegality or public policy
in two circumstances:
1) legislation provides that it is unenforceable
2) the interest in its enforcement is clearly outweighed in the
circumstances by a public policy against the enforcement of such
terms.
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Release, Payment, & Former Recovery
 RELEASE
Release, in law, refers either to the surrender or abandonment of one’s
right to claim and enforce an obligation or the extinguishment or
waiver to perform a duty or to settle a liability ( (e.g. the release of one’s
right to sue for damages.) Release as a defense is established on the
concept of waivers, wherein certain acts or stipulations may release
one party from liability if an event occurs wherein the said liability
arises, provided that the waiver is not contrary to law, public order,
public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person
with a right recognized by law. (Article 6, Civil Code of the Philippines)
 RELEASE
Hence, if a valid settlement agreement provides for the
"release of respondents from all liabilities including those
based from torts, arising from the death/disappearance of the
crewmembers as a result of the sinking of the vessel." Even
claims arising from quasi-delict would be barred as shown
in the blanket waiver of right to sue. (Sps. Dalen v Mitsui
O.S.K. Lines Diamond Camella, G.R. No. 194403. July 24,
2019)
Raising the affirmative defense of
release posits that the complainant
has already relinquished their
rights to file an action against the
respondents, resulting in the
infirmity of the suit against them.
For a waiver to be valid, the
requisites of a person waiving
their rights are:
Raising the affirmative defense 1. That they must do so
of release posits that the voluntarily,
complainant has already 2. That have full
relinquished their rights to file an understanding of its
action against the respondents, terms, and
hence the invalidity of the filed
suit against them. For a waiver to
3. That the consideration
be valid, the requisites of a for the waiver or
person waiving their rights are: quitclaim must be
credible and reasonable.
 PAYMENT
• The affirmative defense of payment may be raised by a defendant
averring that the breach of obligation which the cause of action arises
from does not exist due to the prior payment of said obligation.

• As a general rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.
Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is
that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on
the plaintiff to prove non-payment. The debtor has the burden of
showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by
payment. (Jimenez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116960, April 2, 1996.)
The Rules of Court provides that the execution of payment is one of the
valid affirmative defenses that may be raised in an answer, hence a defense
of non-payment due to allegedly justifiable causes is ineffective in assailing
a cause of action for a breach of obligation to pay. A formal complaint must
be commenced with the trial court to provide the proper venue for the
determination if there is a valid tender of payment. Strictly speaking,
without the institution of an action for tender of payment and consignation,
the trial court cannot rule on whether or not respondent was justified in not
effecting payment solely to one of the parties in the contract. (Mongao v
Pryce Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 156474. August 16, 2005.)
 PAYMENT

The delivery of a check does not constitute a proper payment.

Under Article 1249 of the Civil Code, payment of debts in money
has to be made in legal tender and the delivery of mercantile
documents, including checks, "shall produce the effect of payment
only when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the
creditor they have been impaired." (Towne & City Development
Corporation v CA, G.R. No. 135043, July 14, 2004.)
 FORMER RECOVERY
Former recovery, as a legal concept, is founded on the
fundamental notion that no individual should be allowed to
recover twice for the same cause of action . This principle is
deeply rooted in the principles of fairness, judicial efficiency,
and the avoidance of duplicative litigation. Essentially, it
prevents parties from re-litigating matters that have already
been adjudicated, thereby promoting finality and certainty in
legal outcomes.(Rule 2, Sec. 4)
 F O R M E R R E C O V E RY

Section 4. Splitting a single

cause of action; effect of.
— If two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the
same cause of action, the filing
of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as
a ground for the dismissal of the
others.
 F O R M E R R E C O V E RY
Section 4. Splitting a single
cause of action; effect of. —
If two or more suits are
instituted on the basis of the
same cause of action, the filing
of one or a judgment upon the
merits in any one is available as
a ground for the dismissal of the
others.
Former Recovery operates
as an affirmative defense by
asserting that the claimant's
attempt to seek recovery for
the same cause of action has
already been adjudicated or
satisfied in a prior legal
proceeding.
40

“ART. 2177. Responsibility for fault or

negligence under the preceding article is
entirely separate and distinct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant.”
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Statute of Limitations, Estoppel and
Discharge in Bankruptcy
 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
• The statute of limitations defines the maximum time that parties have to initiate
legal proceedings from the alleged offense date. After the expiry of this
statutory period, unless an exceptional situation applies, a claim is "time-
barred," meaning one loses the legal remedy to file a claim.

• It is governed by Act No. 3326, as amended, and the Civil Code. The
prescriptive period is generally up to 15 years. However, there can be variations
depending on the specific circumstances or the nature of the fraud committed.
The prescriptive period generally begins from the day the fraud is discovered
by the offended party, not from the date when the fraud occurred.
 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

There are certain conditions under which the running of the statute of
limitations can be halted or "tolled," such as:

• Filing of a case
• Absence of the offender:
 ESTOPPEL

Estoppel (Article 1431) is an

admission rendered
conclusive upon the person
making it and cannot be
denied or disproved against
the person relying thereon.

E S TO P P E L
Estoppel (Article 1431) is an
admission rendered conclusive
upon the person making it and
cannot be denied or disproved
against the person relying
thereon.
Three (3) kinds of
Estoppel
1. Estoppel in pais
2. Estoppel by deed
3. Estoppel by laches
 ESTOPPEL
1. Estoppel in pais- is a defense doctrine that prevents a party from using a right
against another party when the right arises out of misleading actions from the
person claiming the right. For example, if someone misleads their partner to
believe they were legally married, they cannot use the illegitimacy of the marriage
later in divorce proceedings as an argument against splitting property in half.

2. Estoppel by deed- prevents a person from denying the truth of any fact stated in
a deed they have executed. For example, if the representation made in the deed is a
mistake or fraudulently induced, it may not be binding. A petitioner cannot claim
the benefits of estoppel. It was never made to rely on any false representations.
3. Estoppel by laches- an equitable estoppel.

A person who has failed or neglected to assert a right for an unreasonable

and unexplained length of time is presumed to have abandoned or otherwise
declined to assert such right and cannot later on seek to enforce the same, to
the prejudice of the other party, who has no notice or knowledge that the
former would assert such rights and whose condition has so changed that
the latter cannot, without injury or prejudice, be restored to his former state.
 Discharge in Bankruptcy
• It is an official court order that releases a debtor from liability for certain types
of debts.

• Creditors are not permitted to contact or pursue debtors for an outstanding debt
after it has been discharged.

• The timing of the discharge varies based on the type of bankruptcy the debtor
has filed.

• Debts not subject to discharge typically include child support, alimony, and
debts for injuries to a person or property, among others.
 Discharge in Bankruptcy
The defenses found in Section 12(a), Rule 8 pertain to those
grounded on lapses done by the plaintiff’s party in following
the requisites for proper filing of the suit or in making the
complaint itself. Do note, however, that failure to state cause of
action is no longer considered grounds for dismissal due to the
recent amendments to the rules.
An example of an affirmative defense
based on one of the grounds specified
in Section 12(a), Rule 8:
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3. Defendant, thru counsel, moves for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper venue
and lack of legal capacity to sue;

4. That the material provision on venue of personal actions provided in Section 2 of Rule 4 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedures reads as follows:

“Section 2. Venue of personal actions – All other actions may be

commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides,
or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.”

5. That as averred in the complaint and evidenced by the Articles of Incorporation of both
the plaintiff and the defendant, their primary business address is at Marilao, Bulacan and
Bonifacio Global City, Taguig, respectively.

6. That plaintiff has no juridical personality since its dissolution on August 9, 2020;

7. That the three-year grace period for filing of suits has already lapsed since plaintiff’s
dissolution;
• Meanwhile, the three defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis
pendentia, and res judicata, assail the validity of the suit itself. These defenses
aver that the suit should not have been filed in the respective court in the first
place.
• Raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter challenges the
authority of the presiding court to hear and render judgment over the controversy.
If the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, any judgment
it may render lacks power to be enforced and the suit ought to be dismissed.
• The defenses of litis pendentia and res judicata alleges that the controversy is
already being heard or has already been settled by a proper trial court, hence
should not be subject to another trial in any other court. The subject matter of
these defenses are included in the certification against forum shopping, and any
violation thereof is grounds for dismissal of the suits and other sanctions.
An example of an Affirmative Defense
based on lack of jurisdiction over the
subject matter, litis pendentia, and res
judicata:
 SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
4. That the current case should be dismissed on grounds that there has been a prior
judgment rendered on the current controversy, as found in Section 12(a), Rule 8 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to Section 47(b), Rule 39 of the same;

5. That Section 12(a), Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
54 “Section 12. Prohibited motions. — The following motions
shall not be allowed:

(a) Motion to dismiss except on the following grounds:

1) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter

of the claim;

2) That there is another action pending between the same

parties for the same cause; and

3) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or

by the statute of limitations;”

6. That Section 47(b), Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure provides:

“(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with

respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other
matter that could have been missed in relation thereto,
conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest, by title subsequent to the commencement of the
action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing
and under the same title and in the same capacity;”
 Counterclaims
Definition, Purpose, and Types
 DEFINITION
• Counterclaim is defined in Section 6
of Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure “A counterclaim is any
claim which a defending party may
have against an opposing party.”

• A counterclaim is described by the

Rules of Court as any claim. This
may refer to a claim for (a) money,
or (b) some other relief against an
opposing party (Yulienco v. Court of
Appeals, 308 SCRA 206).
DEFINITION
Counterclaim is defined in Section 6
of Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure “A counterclaim is any
claim which a defending party may
have against an opposing party.”
A counterclaim is described by the
Rules of Court as any claim. This
may refer to a claim for (a) money,
or (b) some other relief against an
opposing party (Yulienco v. Court of
Appeals, 308 SCRA 206).
PURPOSE
They are generally allowed in order to avoid
a multiplicity of suits and to facilitate the
disposition of the whole controversy in a
single action, such that the defendant’s
demand may be adjudged by a counterclaim
rather than by an independent suit.
It is in itself a distinct and independent cause
of action and when filed, there are two
simultaneous actions between the same parties
The filing of a counterclaim gives rise to two complaints, namely:
1. the one filed by the plaintiff by way of an original complaint; and
2. the one filed by the defendant by way of a counterclaim.

To illustrate: PP files a complaint for unlawful detainer against DD. The latter
files an answer together with a claim for reimbursement of all the expenses he
incurred in repairing the building subject of the lease, the claim for
reimbursement is a counterclaim and is in the nature of a complaint by the
defendant against the plaintiff.

A counterclaim is not intrinsically a part of the answer because it is a separate

pleading. It may, however, be included in the answer.
 PERMISSIVE
COUNTERCLAIMS
A counterclaim is permissive 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. (January 13,
2016 G.R. No. 198752 – Alba vs. Malapajo)
 Counterclaim Case
The case of Villanueva-Ong vs. Enrile where Yolanda Villanueva-Ong filed a
Petition for Review on Certiorari against Juan Ponce Enrile, challenging the Court
of Appeals' decision in a libel case. Enrile filed a civil complaint for damages
against Villanueva-Ong, based on an article in the Philippine Star. The Regional
Trial Court ordered Villanueva-Ong to pay docket fees for her counterclaims, which
were only accepted if done. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed
the RTC's ruling, stating that Villanueva-Ong's counterclaims were permissive. The
Supreme Court ruled that the counterclaims were compulsory and should be
resolved along with the civil complaint. The court also clarified that the suspension
of the rule on filing fees for compulsory counterclaims was still in effect. (GR No.
212904, November 2, 2017)
 Counterclaim Case
Another case is from Bungcayao, Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and
Development Corp., where the case revolves around a dispute over property
ownership. The petitioner, Manuel C. Bungcayao, Sr., claimed to have made
improvements in 1978, while the respondent, Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and
Development Corporation, claimed the property was part of their titled property.
The trial court confirmed the cancellation of the deed and payment, but the
petitioner continued his claim for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision, stating the counterclaim was permissive and the trial court's judgment null
and void.
 Counterclaim Case
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's counterclaim for recovery of
possession of the property is not compulsory but permissive. A compulsory
counterclaim is one that arises out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. In
this case, the counterclaim for recovery of possession is not directly related to the
petitioner's claim for the declaration of nullity of the contract. Therefore, the trial
court's judgment in relation to the counterclaim is null and void.

In that case, SC ruled that the recovery of possession of the property is a permissive
counterclaim, while being an offshoot of the basic transaction between the parties,
will not be barred if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the same case.
 COMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIMS
A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or any relief, which a
defending party may have against an opposing party, which at the time of
suit arises out of, or is necessarily connected with, the same transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s complaint. It is
compulsory in the sense that it is within the jurisdiction of the court, does
not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction, and will be barred in the future if not set
up in the answer to the complaint in the same case. Any other counterclaim
is permissive. (January 13, 2016 G.R. No. 198752 – Alba vs. Malapajo)
The rule is that a compulsory counterclaim not set up shall be barred if not raised
on time and the party in error is precluded from setting it up in a subsequent
litigation on the ground of res judicata, the theory being that what are barred by
prior judgment are not only the matters actually raised and litigated upon, but also
such matters as could have been raised but were not. In other words, a compulsory
counterclaim cannot be made the subject of a separate action but should be asserted
in the same suit involving the same transaction or occurrence giving rise to it.
Where the counterclaim is made the subject of a separate suit, it may be abated upon
a plea of auter action pendant or litis pendentia, and or dismissed on the ground of
res judicata. There is no need to pay docketing fees for a compulsory counterclaim.
(G.R. No. 95631. October 28, 1991. METALS ENGINEERING RESOURCES CORPORATION
v. COURT OF APPEALS and PLARIDEL JOSE)
 COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
In summary, a counterclaim to be classified as compulsory must:
a. Be cognizable by regular courts of justice
b. Arise out of the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject
matter of the plaintiff’s claim
c. Not require the presence of third parties whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction
d. Be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to amount and the
nature thereof, except if the original action is filed before the RTC.
 COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
The Court has ruled that the compelling test of compulsoriness
characterizes a counterclaim as compulsory if there should exist a logical
relationship between the main claim and the counterclaim. The Court
further ruled that there exists such a relationship when conducting separate
trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail substantial
duplication of time and effort by the parties and the court; when the
multiple claims involve the same factual and legal issues; or when the
claims are offshoots of the same basic controversy between the parties.

(January 13, 2016 G.R. No. 198752 – Alba vs. Malapajo)

The criteria to determine whether the counterclaim is compulsory or
permissive are as follows:
(a) Are issues of fact and law raised by the claim and by the counterclaim largely
the same?
(b) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on the defendant's claim, absent the
compulsory rule?
(c) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute the plaintiff's claim as
well as the defendant's counterclaim?
(d) Is there any logical relations between the claim and the counterclaim?
A positive answer to all four questions would indicate that the counterclaim is
compulsory.
70

Difference of Permissive and Compulsory

Counterclaim
 PERMISSIVE
Not subject to the rule on
compulsory counterclaims.
Hence, it may be set up as
an independent action and
will not be barred if not
contained in an answer to
the complaint

PERMISSIVE
Not subject to the rule on
compulsory counterclaims.
Hence, it may be set up as an
independent action and will not
be barred if not contained in an
answer to the complaint
COMPULSORY
A compulsory counterclaim, which a
party has at the time the answer is
filed, shall be contained in the answer
[Sec. 8, Rule 11] because a
compulsory counterclaim not raised in
the same action shall be barred, unless
otherwise allowed by these rules.
[Sec. 7, Rule 6 ]
 PERMISSIVE

Initiatory pleading
PERMISSIVE COMPULSORY
Initiatory pleading Not an initiatory pleading
 PERMISSIVE
Should be accompanied by
a certification against
forum shopping and,
whenever required by law,
also a certificate to file
action issued by the
Lupong Tagapamayapa
PERMISSIVE COMPULSORY
Should be accompanied by a
certification against forum Said certifications are not
shopping and, whenever required
required by law, also a certificate
to file action issued by the
Lupong Tagapamayapa
 PERMISSIVE
Must be answered by the
party against whom it is
interposed, otherwise he
may be declared in default
as to the counterclaim
PERMISSIVE COMPULSORY

Must be answered by the Failure to answer a

party against whom it is compulsory counterclaim
interposed, otherwise he is not a cause for a default
may be declared in default
declaration
as to the counterclaim
 PERMISSIVE
Not subject to the rule on
compulsory counterclaims.
Hence, it may be set up as
an independent action and
will not be barred if not
contained in an answer to
the complaint

PERMISSIVE
Not subject to the rule on
compulsory counterclaims.
Hence, it may be set up as an
independent action and will not
be barred if not contained in an
answer to the complaint
COMPULSORY
A compulsory counterclaim, which a
party has at the time the answer is
filed, shall be contained in the answer
[Sec. 8, Rule 11] because a
compulsory counterclaim not raised in
the same action shall be barred, unless
otherwise allowed by these rules.
[Sec. 7, Rule 6 ]
 PERMISSIVE

Has no relatedness
requirement
 COMPULSORY
PERMISSIVE
Has relatedness requirement
Has no relatedness (claim must arise out of the
requirement same transaction and
occurrence)
Thank you!

83