Answer Ex AbudantiCautela?

See Rosete
v. Lim, G.R. No. 136051, June 8, 2006
Ex abudanti cautela means out of abundant caution or to be
on the safe side. An answer ex abudanti cautela does not
make their answer less of an answer. A cursory look at the
answers filed by petitioners shows that they contain their
respective defenses. An answer is a pleading in which a
defending party sets forth his defensesand the failure to file
one within the time allowed herefore may cause a
defending party to be declared in default. Thus, petitioners,
knowing fully well the effect of the non-filing of an answer,
filed their answers despite the pendency of their appeal
with the Court of Appeals on the denial of their motion to
dismiss.
Petitioners argument that the issues of the case have not yet
been joined must necessarily fail in light of our ruling that
petitioners have filed their answers although the same were
made ex abudanti cautela. Issues are joined when all the
parties have pleaded their respective theories and the terms
of the dispute are plain before the court. In the present case,
the issues have, indeed, been joined when petitioners, as
well as the other defendants, filed their answers. The
respective claims and defenses of the parties have been
defined and the issues to be decided by the trial court have
been laid down.
Filing fees for compulsory counterclaim or
cross-claims: See Korea Technologies Co. Inc.
v.
 it was not liable to pay filing fees for said
counterclaims being compulsory in nature. We
stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004
under Sec. 7, Rule 141, as amended by A.M.
No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required
to be paid in compulsory counterclaim or cross-
claims.
Spouses Mendiola v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 159746, July 18, 2012

The four tests to determine whether a

counterclaim is compulsory or not are the
following, to wit: (a) Are the issues of fact or
law raised by the claim and the counterclaim
largely the same? (b) Would res judicata bar a
subsequent suit on defendants claims, absent
the compulsory counterclaim rule? (c) Will
substantially the same evidence support or
refute plaintiffs claim as well as the
defendants counterclaim? and (d) Is there any
logical relation between the claim and the
counterclaim, such that the conduct of
separate trials of the respective claims of the
parties would entail a substantial duplication of
effort and time by the parties and the court?38
Of the four, the one compelling test of
compulsoriness is the logical relation between
the claim alleged in the complaint and that in
the counterclaim. Such relationship exists 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.39 If these
tests result in affirmative answers, the
counterclaim is compulsory.

Bar by res judicata avails if the following

elements are present, to wit: (a) the former
judgment or order must be final; (b) the
judgment or order must be on the merits; (c) it
must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (d) there must be, between the first
and the second action, identity of parties, of
subject matter and cause of action

Bungcayao Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property

Holdings and Development Corp., G.R. No.
170483, April 19, 2010
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 plaintiffs
complaint.[13] 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.[14] Any other counterclaim is permissive.[15]

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.[16] 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.[17]
Firaza Sr. v. Ugay, G.R. No. 165838, April 3,
2013

The attack is considered direct when the object of

an action is to annul or set aside such proceeding,
or enjoin its enforcement. Conversely, an attack is
indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a
different relief, an attack on the proceeding is
nevertheless made as an incident thereof. Such
action to attack a certificate of title may be an
original action or a counterclaim, in which a
certificate of title is assailed as void.
 GSIS v. Heirs of Caballero, G.R. No. 158090,
October 4, 2010

The rule in permissive counterclaims is that for the

trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the
counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed
docket fees.[13] This, petitioner did not do,
because it asserted that its claim for the collection
of rental payments was a compulsory counterclaim.
Since petitioner failed to pay the docket fees, the
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over its permissive
counterclaim.

Any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total

nullity and may be struck down at any time

Sy-Vargas v. Estate of Rolando Ogsos, Sr., G.R.

No. 221062, October 5, 2016

the Court finds that the counterclaim of

respondents is permissive in nature. This is
because: (a) the issue in the main case, i.e.,
whether or not respondents are liable to pay lease
rentals, is entirely different from the issue in the
counterclaim,
In view of the finding that the counterclaim is
permissive, and not compulsory as held by the
courts a quo, respondents are required to pay
docket fees. However, it must be clarified that
respondents' failure to pay the required docket
fees, per se, should not necessarily lead to the
dismissal of their counterclaim. It has long been
settled that while the court acquires jurisdiction
over any case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fees, its non-payment at the
time of filing of the initiatory pleading does not
automatically cause its dismissal provided that: (a)
the fees are paid within a reasonable period; and
(b) there was no intention on the part of the
claimant to defraud the
government.55chanrobleslaw

Paramount Life & General Insurance v. Castro,

G.R. No. 195728, April 19, 2016
The soundness of admitting a third-party complaint
hinges on causal connection between the claim of
the plaintiff in his complaint and a claim for
contribution, indemnity or other relief of the
defendant against the third-party defendant

Intervention: Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v.

Spouses de Guzman, G.R. No. 182136-37

To warrant intervention, two requisites must

concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, and (b) intervention must not
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the parties nor should the claim of the
intervenor be capable of being properly decided in
a separate proceeding. The interest, which entitles
a person to intervene in a suit, must involve the
matter in litigation and of such direct and
immediate character that the intervenor will either
gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect
of the judgment.

Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 174385, February 20,

2013

A motion for intervention, like any other motion,

has to comply with the mandatory requirements of
notice and hearing, as well as proof of its service,
save only for those that the courts can act upon
without prejudice to the rights of the other parties.
A motion which fails to comply with these
requirements is a worthless piece of paper that
cannot and should not be acted upon. The reason
for this is plain: a movant asks the court to take a
specific course of action, often contrary to the
interest of the adverse party and which the latter
must then be given the right and opportunity to
oppose. The notice of hearing to the adverse party
thus directly services the required due process as it
affords the adverse party the opportunity to
properly state his agreement or opposition to the
action that the movant asks for.2Consequently, our
procedural rules provide that a motion that does
not afford the adverse party this kind of
opportunity should simply be disregarded.
The notice requirement is even more mandatory
when the movant asks for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction and/or a TRO. Under Section
5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, no preliminary
injunction shall be granted without a hearing and
without prior notice to the party sought to be
enjoined. The prior notice under this requirement is
as important as the hearing, as no hearing can
meaningfully take place, with both parties present
or represented, unless a prior notice of the hearing
is given.

Additionally, in the same way that an original

complaint must be served on the defendant, a
copy of the complaint-in-intervention must be
served on the adverse party with the requisite
proof of service duly filed prior to any valid court
action. Absent these or any reason duly explained
and accepted excusing strict compliance, the court
is without authority to act on such complaint; any
action taken without the required service
contravenes the law and the rules, and violates the
adverse partys basic and constitutional right to
due process.

Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001

a certification against forum shopping may be
signed by an authorized lawyer who has personal
knowledge of the facts required to be disclosed in
such document. However, BA Savings Bank must
be distinguished from the case at bar because in
the former, the complainant was a corporation, and
hence, a juridical person. Therefore, that case
made an exception to the general rule that the
certification must be made by the petitioner
himself since a corporation can only act through
natural persons. In fact, physical actions, e.g.,
signing and delivery of documents, may be
performed on behalf of the corporate entity only by
specifically authorized individuals. In the instant
case, petitioners are all natural persons and there
is no showing of any reasonable cause to justify
their failure to personally sign the certification.

Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo v. Soliman, G.R. No. 178952, April 10,

2013

The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum

shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a
case and the signature of only one of them is
insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed
that the rules on forum shopping were designed to
promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice and thus should not be interpreted with
such absolute literalness as to subvert its own
ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of
substantial compliance may be availed of with
respect to the contents of the certification. This is
because the requirement of strict compliance with
the provisions regarding the certification of non-
forum shopping merely underscores its mandatory
nature in that the certification cannot be altogether
dispensed with or its requirements completely
disregarded

The certification against forum shopping must be

signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped
as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the
plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest
and invoke a common cause of action or defense,
the signature of only one of them in the
certification against forum shopping substantially
complies with the Rule

Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 193415, April 18,

2012

Forum shopping is the act of litigants who

repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial
remedies in different fora, simultaneously or
successively, all substantially founded on the same
transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances; and raising substantially similar
issues either pending in or already resolved
adversely by some other court; or for the purpose
of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable
decision, if not in one court, then in another.[52]
The rationale against forum-shopping is that a
party should not be allowed to pursue
simultaneous remedies in two different courts, for
to do so would constitute abuse of court processes
which tends to degrade the administration of
justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial
procedure, and adds to the congestion of the
heavily burdened dockets of the courts

Petition for Relief from Judgment: Norris v. Parentela Jr., February 27, 2003
We find for private respondents. Procedural rules
should not be ignored, particularly in this case
where petitioner had all the opportunity to have
her case determined on the merits but lost it
several times due to procedural incompetence.
First, petitioner failed to accompany her petition for
relief from judgment before the trial court with
certification against forum shopping in violation of
this courts Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which
requires that complaints and other initiatory
pleadings filed in all courts and agencies other
than the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
be accompanied by such certification. Second
paragraph of Section 1 of the said circular clearly
includes in its enumeration of initiatory pleadings a
petition where the party asserts his claim for relief.
Petitioners petition for relief from judgment filed
before the trial court is included in said
enumeration because it is a new petition where a
party seeks relief based on grounds different from
those in the original case, namely, fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence. Undoubtedly,
said petition was covered by the circular. Secondly,
petitioner failed to put a notice of hearing
addressed to the parties in her motion for
reconsideration of the order denying her petition
for relief. This is again procedurally flawed because
Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court clearly
provides that notice of hearing shall be addressed
to all parties concerned. Notice addressed to the
clerk of court and not to the parties does not
suffice as notice to all. A motion that does not
contain a notice of hearing to the adverse party is
nothing but a mere scrap of paper and the clerk of
court does not have the duty to accept it, much
less to bring it to the attention of the presiding
judge. Lastly, the petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals, as stated earlier, was defective.
Aside from the fact that petitioner did not attach a
certified true copy of the orders subject of the
appeal, she also did not show the material dates
when her attorney-in-fact received the copy of the
order, thus preventing the Court of Appeals from
determining whether the petition was filed on time.
Upon motion, it was revealed that the petition was
filed late. Obviously, the reason why petitioner did
not state the material dates was to confuse or even
mislead the appellate court into accepting her
appeal despite the fatal delay in its filing. This
could result in a mockery of our judicial system,
which cannot be ignored.

Argana v. Republic, G.R. No. 147227, November 19, 2004, 443

 SCRA 184
the Motion to Rescind, which in effect was a
petition for relief, is not an initiatory pleading which
requires the inclusion of a Certification against
Forum-Shopping. Section 2, Rule 38 requires that a
petition for relief must be filed with the court which
rendered the judgment or order sought to be set
aside, and in the same case wherein the judgment
or order was rendered. If the court finds that the
allegations in the petition for relief are true, it shall
set aside the judgment and try the principal case
upon the merits as if a timely motion for new trial
had been granted.[53] Clearly, then, a petition for
relief is not an initiatory pleading in a new case
which would require the filing by the petitioner
therein of a Certification of Non- Forum Shopping.