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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    Agana Vs Lagman

    Uploaded by

    Abdul-Hayya Ditongcopun
    This case concerns a petition seeking to reverse a trial court's order recalling its previous dismissal of a counterclaim. The trial court initially dismissed the counterclaim for lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping but later recalled this upon determining the counterclaim was compulsory in nature. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, finding that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring certificates does not apply to compulsory counterclaims, which are reactions to initiatory pleadings like a complaint rather than independent claims themselves. As the counterclaim was compulsory, arising from the same transaction as the complaint, it did not require a certificate to avoid dismissal.

    Copyright:

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

    Agana Vs Lagman

    Uploaded by

    Abdul-Hayya Ditongcopun
    114 views1 page
    This case concerns a petition seeking to reverse a trial court's order recalling its previous dismissal of a counterclaim. The trial court initially dismissed the counterclaim for lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping but later recalled this upon determining the counterclaim was compulsory in nature. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, finding that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring certificates does not apply to compulsory counterclaims, which are reactions to initiatory pleadings like a complaint rather than independent claims themselves. As the counterclaim was compulsory, arising from the same transaction as the complaint, it did not require a certificate to avoid dismissal.

    Original Description:

    Agana vs Lagman

    Original Title

    Agana vs Lagman

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns a petition seeking to reverse a trial court's order recalling its previous dismissal of a counterclaim. The trial court initially dismissed the counterclaim for lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping but later recalled this upon determining the counterclaim was compulsory in nature. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, finding that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring certificates does not apply to compulsory counterclaims, which are reactions to initiatory pleadings like a complaint rather than independent claims themselves. As the counterclaim was compulsory, arising from the same transaction as the complaint, it did not require a certificate to avoid dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    114 views1 page

    Agana Vs Lagman

    Uploaded by

    Abdul-Hayya Ditongcopun
    This case concerns a petition seeking to reverse a trial court's order recalling its previous dismissal of a counterclaim. The trial court initially dismissed the counterclaim for lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping but later recalled this upon determining the counterclaim was compulsory in nature. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's ruling, finding that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 requiring certificates does not apply to compulsory counterclaims, which are reactions to initiatory pleadings like a complaint rather than independent claims themselves. As the counterclaim was compulsory, arising from the same transaction as the complaint, it did not require a certificate to avoid dismissal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    113. ESTHERLITA CRUZ-AGANA, vs. HON.

    JUDGE AURORA SANTIAGO-LAGMAN

    This petition for certiorari1 seeks to reverse the Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Malolos, Bulacan ("trial court"), dated
    4 June 1999, recalling its previous Order dated 25 May 1999 dismissing B. Serrano Enterprises, Inc.'s ("respondent") counterclaim
    upon a motion to dismiss filed by petitioner Estherlita Cruz-Agana ("petitioner").

    Facts
     Petitioner filed a Complaint for annulment of title with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction against respondent.
     Petitioner claims that she is the sole owner of a lot and that the lot was fraudulently sold to Eugenio Lopez, Jr. who later
    on transferred the lot to respondent, B. Serrano Enterprises, Inc.'s.
     Respondent seasonably filed its Answer with compulsory counterclaim.
     Petitioner moved to dismiss respondent's counterclaim for lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping.
     trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss respondent's counterclaim. and held that respondent's counterclaim is
    compulsory and therefore excluded from the coverage of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. 
     Petitioner moved that the trial court reconsider its Order invoking the mandatory nature of a certificate of non-forum
    shopping under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94.2 
     Trial court reversed its 11 March 1999 Order and dismissed respondent's counterclaim for lack of a certificate of non-
    forum shopping.
     Respondent seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 does not apply to
    compulsory counterclaims following the ruling in Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla.3  On 4 June 1999, the
    trial court again reversed itself and recalled its Order dismissing respondent's counterclaim.
    o The trial court found that respondent's counterclaim is compulsory in nature. The trial court ruled that the filing
    of a compulsory counterclaim does not require a certificate of non-forum shopping.  On the effect of Santo
    Tomas on Administrative Circular No. 04-94, the trial court explained:
    It is settled rule that it is one of the inherent powers of the court to amend and control its
    processes and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. This power includes the
    right to reverse itself, specially when in its honest opinion, it has committed an error or mistake in
    judgment, and that to adhere to its decision will cause injustice to a party litigant.
    Hence this petition under Rule 65.

    Issue
    W/N THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S COUNTERCLAIM.
    (NO)

    HELD: KINDS OF PLEADING


     Santo Tomas clarified the scope of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 with respect to counterclaims.  The Court pointed
    out that this circular is intended primarily to cover "an initiatory pleading or an incipient application of a party asserting a
    claim for relief."  The distinction between a compulsory and a permissive counterclaim is vital in the application of the
    circular.  The Court explained: It should not be too difficult, the foregoing rationale of the circular aptly taken, to sustain
    the view that the circular in question has not, in fact, been contemplated to include a kind of claim which, by its very
    nature as being auxiliary to the proceedings in the suit and as deriving its substantive and jurisdictional support
    therefrom, can only be appropriately pleaded in the answer and not remain outstanding for independent resolution except
    by the court where the main case pends. Prescinding from the foregoing, the proviso in the second paragraph of Section
    5, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., that the violation of the anti-forum shopping rule "shall not be curable
    by mere amendment xxx but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice," being predicated on the
    applicability of the need for a certification against forum-shopping, obviously does not include a claim which cannot be
    independently set up.
    The Court reiterated this ruling in Ponciano v. Judge Parentela, Jr.
     Administrative Circular No. 04-94 does not apply to compulsory counterclaims.  The circular applies to initiatory and
    similar pleadings.  A compulsory counterclaim set up in the answer is not an "initiatory" or similar pleading.  The initiatory
    pleading is the plaintiff's complaint.  A respondent has no choice but to raise a compulsory counterclaim the moment the
    plaintiff files the complaint.  Otherwise, respondent waives the compulsory counterclaim. In short, the compulsory
    counterclaim is a reaction or response, mandatory upon pain of waiver, to an initiatory pleading which is the complaint.
     A compulsory counterclaim is any claim for money or other 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 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.
     It is clear that the counterclaim set up by respondent arises from the filing of plaintiff's complaint.  The counterclaim is so
    intertwined with the main case that it is incapable of proceeding independently.  The counterclaim will require a re-
    litigation of the same evidence if the counterclaim is allowed to proceed in a separate action.  Even petitioner recognizes
    that respondent's counterclaim is compulsory. A compulsory counterclaim does not require a certificate of non-forum
    shopping because a compulsory counterclaim is not an initiatory pleading.

    You might also like