Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 407 views

    Agustin v. Bacalan

    Uploaded by

    virvsha Indoloz
    The case involved a lessee, Bacalan, who was sued for nonpayment of rent by the property owner, Agustin. Bacalan filed a counterclaim alleging the suit was filed in bad faith. The city court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered Bacalan to vacate. On appeal, the Court of First Instance reversed in Bacalan's favor and awarded damages exceeding the city court's jurisdiction. Agustin claimed these damages were void. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of First Instance cannot award a counterclaim exceeding the lower court's jurisdiction on appeal, as the scope is limited to the original complaint and answer. A counterclaim beyond jurisdiction can only be used defensively, not to obtain affirmative relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Agustin v. Bacalan

    Uploaded by

    virvsha Indoloz
    407 views1 page
    The case involved a lessee, Bacalan, who was sued for nonpayment of rent by the property owner, Agustin. Bacalan filed a counterclaim alleging the suit was filed in bad faith. The city court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered Bacalan to vacate. On appeal, the Court of First Instance reversed in Bacalan's favor and awarded damages exceeding the city court's jurisdiction. Agustin claimed these damages were void. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of First Instance cannot award a counterclaim exceeding the lower court's jurisdiction on appeal, as the scope is limited to the original complaint and answer. A counterclaim beyond jurisdiction can only be used defensively, not to obtain affirmative relief.

    Original Description:

    Agustin v. Bacalan

    Original Title

    66. Agustin v. Bacalan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a lessee, Bacalan, who was sued for nonpayment of rent by the property owner, Agustin. Bacalan filed a counterclaim alleging the suit was filed in bad faith. The city court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered Bacalan to vacate. On appeal, the Court of First Instance reversed in Bacalan's favor and awarded damages exceeding the city court's jurisdiction. Agustin claimed these damages were void. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of First Instance cannot award a counterclaim exceeding the lower court's jurisdiction on appeal, as the scope is limited to the original complaint and answer. A counterclaim beyond jurisdiction can only be used defensively, not to obtain affirmative relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    407 views1 page

    Agustin v. Bacalan

    Uploaded by

    virvsha Indoloz
    The case involved a lessee, Bacalan, who was sued for nonpayment of rent by the property owner, Agustin. Bacalan filed a counterclaim alleging the suit was filed in bad faith. The city court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered Bacalan to vacate. On appeal, the Court of First Instance reversed in Bacalan's favor and awarded damages exceeding the city court's jurisdiction. Agustin claimed these damages were void. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of First Instance cannot award a counterclaim exceeding the lower court's jurisdiction on appeal, as the scope is limited to the original complaint and answer. A counterclaim beyond jurisdiction can only be used defensively, not to obtain affirmative relief.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Agustin vs. Bacalan, GR No.

    L-46000, March 18, 1985, 135 SCRA 340

    Facts: Bacalan is a lessee of a one-door ground floor space in a building owned by the late
    Susana Agustin. Due to nonpayment of rentals an action to eject him was filed.
    In his answer, Bacalan included a counter- claim alleging that the action was "unfounded and
    devoid of merits, tainted with malice and bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, and filed
    merely to annoy, vex, embarrass and inconvenience the defendant." The City Court of Cebu
    subsequently rendered judgment dismissing the counterclaim and ordering the defendant
    to vacate the premises in question and to pay the plaintiff the unpaid back rentals and
    attorneyʼs fees. From this decision, the defendant filed an appeal with Branch III of the
    Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. CFI reverses in favor of Bacalan, it also awarded huge
    amounts of damages. No appeal was taken by the plaintiff-appellant. The decision lapsed into
    finality and became executory. A writ of execution was issued by virtue of which a notice to
    sell at public auction real properties belonging to the estate of Susana Agustin was issued
    by the Deputy Sheriff to satisfy judgment in the case. Plaintiff s counsel filed a motion for
    reconsideration, confessing his fault and giving the reason why he failed to perfect the
    appeal on time. The motion was denied. Agustin files a new complaint, wherein he claims
    that the damages awarded are beyond jurisdiction of City court of Cebu, hence void.

    Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance may, in an appeal, award the defendant-
    appellee's counterclaim in an amount exceeding or beyond the jurisdiction of the court of
    origin

    Ruling: No. A court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a set-off or counterclaim in
    excess of its jurisdiction. A counterclaim beyond the court’s jurisdiction may only be pleaded
    by way of defense, the purpose of which, however, is only to defeat or weaken plaintif’s claim,
    but not to obtain affirmative relief (Section 5, Rule 5). In the case at bar, Bacalan set up his
    claim in excess of the jurisdiction of the city court as a compulsory counterclaim. The rule
    is that a counterclaim not presented in the inferior court cannot be entertained in the
    Court of First Instance on appeal (Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines,
    Vol. III, p. 26, citing the cases of Bernardo v. Genato, 11 Phil. 603 and Yu Lay v. Galmes,
    40 Phil. 651). As explained in Yu Lay v. Galmes—"Upon an appeal to a court of first
    instance from the judgment of a justice of the peace, it is not possible, without changing
    the purpose of the appeal, to alter the nature of the question raised by the complaint and
    the answer in the original action. There can be no doubt, therefore, of the scope of the
    doctrine laid down in the several decisions of the Court. Consequently, We hold that, upon
    an appeal to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff as well as the defendant cannot file
    any pleading or allegation which raises a question essentially distinct from that raised and
    decided in the justice of the peace court.”

    You might also like