PROCEDURE IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Rule 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS

SECTION 1. Pleadings Defined. Pleadings are the written

statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. (1a)

Actually, we already touched the word “PLEADING” before. In the Constitution when we were asking what
is the basis of the authority of the Supreme Court to enact the Rules of Court or Procedural Law. The
Constitution says, the Supreme Court shall have the authority to promulgate Rules on pleadings, practice and
procedure. Then we discussed jurisdiction over the issues. Jurisdiction over the issues is determined by the
allegations in the pleadings.

Q: Define pleadings?
A: PLEADINGS are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to
the court for appropriate judgment. (Section 1)

This is the document where a party will state his claim against the defendant; or where the defendant will state
also his defense. Pleadings merely tell a story. You tell your story there, the other party will tell his story.

And how do you assert your claim in court? Not by calling up a judge over the telephone or writing a letter to
the judge, “Dear judge….” but through the appropriate pleadings. How do they look like? The rules are laid
down. It becomes clearer in the 3rd year subject known as Legal Forms. In that subject you will study particular
forms. They have patterns. In pleadings, you do it in legal manner. You do not say, “Once upon a time…”

The counterpart of pleadings in criminal procedure is information, or the criminal complaint where a
prosecutor will tell what crime you are being accused – what you did, time, the victim, etc.

Sec. 2 – Pleadings allowed – The claims of a party are asserted

in a complaint, counterclaim, 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. (n)

Section 2 tells us what are the pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court. In a civil case, there are actually two
(2) contending parties: (1) the person suing or filing claim; and (2) the person being sued.

Q: If you are the claimant or the plaintiff, in what pleading do you assert your claim?
A: Complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint or fourth-party complaint, etc.

These are the different pleadings allowed by the Rules. Of course, maybe, the only thing that you are familiar
with is the complaint. As we go over the Rules, you will understand what do you mean by those pleadings.

On the other hand, if you are the party sued, you also have to file your pleading or your defense. It is known
as the ANSWER. The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against him.
If I file a complaint against you, in response, you will file an answer.

In last paragraph, an answer may be responded by a REPLY. I file a complaint. You file an answer invoking
your defenses. If I want to respond to your defenses, I will file a REPLY.

COMPLAINT ANSWER REPLY

 That is the pattern.

Q: Summarizing all of them, what are the know pleadings recognized by the law on Civil Procedure?
A: There are seven (7) types of pleadings:
Complaint;
Answer;
Counterclaim;
Cross-claim;
Reply
Third (Fourth, Fifth, etc.) – Party Complaint;
Complaint-in-Intervention.

Let us go over each one of them. How do they function?

A.) COMPLAINT

Sec. 3. Complaint – 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.

Q: Define complaint.
A: COMPLAINT is the pleading where the plaintiff will allege his cause or causes of action. A complaint is
also called the INITIATORY PLEADING. Because it is actually the first pleading filed in court. It is the
pleading that starts the ball rolling. It is the pleading that initiates the civil action.

Of course, the names and residences of the defendants must be stated in the complaint. Do you know the
pattern for a complaint?

For EXAMPLE: Mr. Pito wants to sue Mr. Peloton to collect an unpaid loan. Mr. Peloton borrowed money
from Mr. Pito and refused to pay. Normally, it starts with an introduction: “Plaintiff, through counsel,
respectfully alleges that…” Then it is followed by paragraphs which are numbered. For instance:

Illustration:

Plaintiff Mr. Pito, of legal age, is a resident of Matina, Davao City; whereas defendant Mr.
Peloton also of legal age, a resident of Bajada, Davao City;
On Nov. 7, 1996, defendant secured a loan from plaintiff the sum of P30,000.00 payable
within one (1) year form said date with legal interest;
The account is already due. Despite repeated demands, defendant failed to and refused to pay;
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendant

ordering him to pay the loan of P30,000.00 and interest in favor of the plaintiff.

It is simple. The complaint is composed of 3 paragraphs only – humiram siya ng pera, ayaw magbayad.
That’s all. That is the pattern of a complaint. Your allegations must contain the four (4) elements of a Cause of
Action – the Right, the Obligation, the Delict or Wrong or Violation of Your Right, and the Damage. Hindi
kailangang mahaba ang complaint.

It becomes clearer in the subject of Legal Forms. That is the last subject in the Bar Exam, Legal Ethics &
Practical Exercises. The examinee will be asked, for instance, to prepare a Contract of Mortgage, or prepare a
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer. There are hundreds of forms and you must be prepared to write down a
sample.
 B.) ANSWER

Sec. 4 – Answer – An answer is a pleading in which a defending

party sets forth his defenses. (4a)

I am the plaintiff. I file the complaint. You received the complaint. You are now required to respond.

Q: What is the pleading where you respond?

A: It is called the ANSWER. That is where you will state your defenses. That is why an ANSWER is called
a Responsive Pleading.

Q: Why is it called “Responsive Pleading”?

A: Because it is the pleading which is filed in response to the complaint. It is where you respond to the cause
of action. That is where you state your defenses.

It is something which is not found in Criminal Procedure. A: NO, there is no such thing as Answer in
Criminal Procedure.

Q: If you are charged with a crime, how do you answer?

A: By pleading guilty or not guilty. That is the answer. When you plead guilty, tapos na! If you say not
guilty, trial will proceed. No writing of defenses. No written answer in criminal cases. It (pleadings) only applies
to civil cases where you allege your defenses.

Q: What are the defenses under the Rules?

A: That is Section 5.

Sec. 5 – Defenses – Defenses may either be negative or

affirmative.
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.
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.

Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.

b.) Answer; NEGATIVE DEFENSES;

Q: Define an NEGATIVE defense.

A: Paragraph [a]: Briefly, it is a defense of specific denial where you deny the statement in the complaint and
you state the facts and the reason/s on which your denial is based. In a negative defense, the defendant
specifically denies a material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the claimant essential to his cause of action.

EXAMPLE: The complaint says in paragraph 2, “On November 6, 1996, defendant secured a loan from
plaintiff in the amount of P30,000.00 payable one (1) year from November 6, 1996. The defendant will say in his
answer:

“Defendant specifically denies the allegation in Paragraph 2 of the complaint. The truth of the
matter being he never secured any loan from plaintiff because he does not even know the plaintiff and
he did not see his face before.”

That is a negative defense. You said I borrowed money from you. “No, I don’t even know you. I have not
seen you before.” He denies the existence of the loan. That is known as the negative defense. It is a denial of a
material fact which constitutes the plaintiff’s cause of action. That’s why it is briefly called a “Defense of Specific
Denial”.

b.) Answer; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Q: Define an AFFIRMATIVE defense.

A: In paragraph (b), it is briefly called a defense of confession and avoidance because, while the defendant
may admit the material allegation in the complaint, however, he will plead a new matter which will prevent a
recovery by the plaintiff. I admit what you are saying in the complaint but still you are not entitled to recover from
me.

EXAMPLE: The defendant may admit what you are saying in your complaint. I borrowed money from you
– admitted! The account is due – admitted! I have not paid you – admitted. “However, you cannot collect from
me because the account has already prescribed.” Meaning, I will admit what you are saying but just the same, I
am not liable. Kaya nga, you confess, eh. I confess to what you say but I still avoid liability.

Examples of affirmative defenses are: 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.

Suppose, you sue me for damages arising from breach of contract. I admit I entered into a contract but I have
no obligation to comply because the contract is null and void. Or, the contract is illegal. Or, the stipulation is
contrary to public policy, therefore, I am not bound. I admit what you say but I am not liable because of the
illegality of the subject matter of the contract.

Or, you sue me because according to you, I entered into a contract and I refused to comply. So, you file a
case against me for specific performance or for damages. Then I say: “It’s true that I entered into a contract with
you. It’s true I did not comply. But there is nothing you can do because the contract is oral and the contract is
covered by the statute of frauds. In order to be enforceable, we should have reduced it into writing. Since we
never reduced it into writing, I am not bound to comply.”

c.) COUNTERCLAIMS

Sec. 6. Counterclaim. - A counterclaim is any claim which a

defending party may have against an opposing party. (6a)

EXAMPLE: You file a case against me for damages to your car. According to you in your complaint, while
you were driving your car along the highway carefully. I came along driving recklessly and bumped your car
causing damages amounting to P50,000.00 for repair. Your allegation is based on negligence on my part.

My answer is denial: “That is not true! I deny that! I was the one driving carefully and you were driving
carelessly and negligently. Therefore, if you are the proximate cause of the accident, I’m not liable for the damage
of your car.” That’s my answer – I’m not liable because you are negligent. Because you were the one negligent,
my car was also damaged. I am not liable for the damage on your car. As a matter of fact, you are the one that
should be held liable to pay for the damage of my car. I am now claiming for the damage of P50,000.00. That is
called COUNTERCLAIM.

According to a lawyer who is fluent in Cebuano, he called it balos. He was explaining to his client that they
have counterclaim. That’s a legal term, eh.

Therefore, there is one civil case but there are two (2) causes involved – the main cause of action in the
complaint and that in the counterclaim. There are two (2) issues to be resolved by the court.

Q: If your complaint against me is to recover a sum of money, should my counterclaim also involve recovery
of sum of money?
A: NO. There is no such rule that these two (2) cases should be similar in nature. (De Borja vs. De Borja,
101 Phil. 911) It is possible for you to file case for recovery of a piece of land and my counterclaim is recovery
of damages arising from a vehicular accident.

Q: Suppose your claim against me is One (1) Million, is it possible that my counterclaim against you is Two
(2) Million?
A: YES. There is no rule which limits my counterclaim to the same amount you are claiming. A counterclaim
need not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party, but may claim relief exceeding in amount
or different I kind from that sought by the opposing party. (De Borja vs. De Borja, 101 Phil. 911)

Q: You file a case against me for recovery of unpaid loan. My counterclaim is, rescission of partnership
contract. Is the counterclaim proper?
A: Yes although there is no connection between what you are asking and what my answer is. But what is
important is tayong dalawa ang naglalaban. If you will not allow me to file my counterclaim against you, that will
be another case in the future. Since nandito na rin tayo, so lahat ng ating reklamo, we might as well have to finish
it. That is allowed.

Q: Why is it that law allows the defendant to counter sue by way of counterclaim the plaintiff?
A: The purpose there is apparently TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS. If you have a cause of action
against me, I will sue you, in the future it will also lead to another case where you will also sue me.

DEBORJA vs. DEBORJA

101 Phil 911

FACTS: A died, of course, what survives after that is the estate. X was appointed as administrator
or legal representative. W owes a sum of money to the estate of A and X filed a case against W to
collect the unpaid loan. X is called the REPRESENTATIVE PARTY under Rule 3, Section 3. W
filed an answer and that W has a claim against X. W filed a counterclaim against X in the case.

HELD: The counterclaim is improper. When X sued W, X is not suing in his own personal
capacity. He is acting as administrator of the estate of A. The real plaintiff is the estate of A. X is just
the legal representative. Therefore, you cannot file a counterclaim against X in the latter’s personal
capacity when X is suing W in a representative capacity.

The SC said that the plaintiff should be sued in a counterclaim in the SAME CAPACITY that he is suing the
defendant. That’s a principle to remember.

PERMISSIVE & COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS

Sec. 7 – Compulsory counterclaim – 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 who the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a
counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as
to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in the original
action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory.

Under the Rules, there are two types of counterclaim. 1) COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM and, 2)
PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM.

Q: How do you distinguish one from the other? When is a counterclaim compulsory and when is it
permissive?
A: The ELEMENTS of a COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM are found in Section 7. If we will outline
Section 7, we will see that a counterclaim is compulsory if the following requisites are present:
It is cognizable by the regular courts of justice;
It arises out of or it is connected with a transaction or occurrence constituting a subject matter of the opposing
party’s claim;
It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of who the court cannot acquire jurisdiction;
It must be within the jurisdiction of the court, both as to 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; and
The defending party has a counterclaim at the time he files his answer.

The fifth requisite is not found in Section 7 but in Rule 11, Section 8:

Rule 11, Sec. 8. Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. - A

compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party
has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein.
(8a, R6)

Another way of saying it is, the counterclaim has already matured at the time he files his answer. That is the
fifth requisite.

Q: What happens if one of these requisites is missing?

A: If one of the five requisites is missing, the counterclaim is permissive in nature.

We will discuss the elements of a compulsory counterclaim one by one.

First Element: A COUNTERCLAIM TO BE COMPULSORY MUST BE COGNIZABLE BY THE REGULAR

COURTS.

In other words, if you file a complaint against me and I have a counterclaim against you in the Labor Code,
then it cannot be classified as a compulsory claim because how can I invoke against you a claim which is
cognizable by the NLRC before the RTC?

Second Element: IT ARISES OUT OF OR IT IS CONNECTED WITH A TRANSACTION OR

OCCURRENCE CONSTITUTING A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE OPPOSING PARTY’S
CLAIM

The second requisite is the most important. A counterclaim, to be compulsory, must arise out of or connected
with the transaction or occurrence constituting a subject matter of the opposing party concerned. It must arise out
of or is connected with a transaction or occurrence constituting a subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. It
must be logically related to the subject matter of the main action.

So the rule is, if the counterclaim did not arise out of or is not connected with the transaction or occurrence
constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s concern, the counterclaim must be permissive in nature.

PROBLEM: Emily filed a case against Regina for damages arising from a vehicle collision. According to
Emily, the case of the accident is the negligence of the defendant in driving her car. Her car bumped the car of
Emily and was damaged. So, Emily is holding Regina liable for the damage on her car. Regina denied that she
was negligent. According to Regina, “No, I am not negligent. As a matter of fact, you (Emily) were the one
negligent, and because of that negligence, my car was also damaged. So you should be the one to pay damages.”
Parang ganyan ba.
Q: Is the counterclaim of Regina arising out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting
the subject matter of the opposing party?
A: YES because we are talking of the same bumping. You bumped my car, you say I bumped your car. So
we are talking of the same event or transaction.
 PROBLEM: Thea G. (as in ‘Gamay’) files a case against me for recovery of a piece of land. According to
her, she is the owner of the land which I’m occupying. Now, I file my answer, and then I said, “Ms. Guadalope,
I spent a lot of money for necessary expenses to preserve the land. You are also liable to reimburse me for the
necessary improvements expenses I introduced on the land.” Under the law on Property, a defendant or
possessor is entitled to reimbursement for necessary improvements and expenses. So she is trying to recover the
piece of land, I am now asking her to reimburse me for all necessary expenses that I spent on the land.
Q: Is my counterclaim arising out of or connected with the subject matter of your claim or not?
A: YES. We are talking of the same subject matter. Thus, the counterclaim is compulsory.

PROBLEM: Thea G. files a case against me for recovery of a piece of land. My counterclaim against her is
damages arising from a vehicular collision.
Q: Is my counterclaim arising out of a subject matter of your action?
A: NO. It is completely different. Thus, that is a permissive counterclaim.

So, those are the examples. That is why, the second requisite is the most important element – a counterclaim
must arise out of or is connected with the subject matter or a transaction or the event or the main action. By the
way, the second element is considered the most important element of compulsory counterclaim because according
to the SC in the 1992 case of

MELITON vs. COURT OF APPEALS

216 SCRA 485

HELD: “It has been postulated that while a number of criteria have been advanced for the
determination of whether the counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, the one compelling test of
compulsoriness is the logical relationship between the claim alleged in the complaint and that in the
counterclaim, that is, where conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would
entail a substantial duplication of effort and time, as where they involve many of the same factual and/
or legal issues.”

Q: What is the importance of determining whether the claim is compulsory or permissive?

A: A compulsory counterclaim must be invoked in the same action. Iit cannot be the subject matter of a
separate action. Unlike in permissive where you have the choice of invoking it in the same case, or in a separate
action, compulsory counterclaim must be invoked in the same action otherwise it will be barred. That is found in
Rule 9, Section 2:

Rule 9, Sec. 2. Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not

set up barred. - A compulsory counter-claim or a cross-claim, not
set up shall be barred. (4a)

So if I do not file a counterclaim against you in the same action, under Rule 9, the counterclaim is barred
forever. I cannot claim it against you in any other case in the future. But if the counterclaim is permissive and I
will not raise it as a counterclaim, it is not barred. It can still be invoked in another case against you. It can be a
subject matter of a separate action.

Let us try to apply that principle to the case cited.

PROBLEM: Vanessa files a case against me for damages arising from vehicular collision. Her car is
damaged, my car is damaged. In my answer, I denied negligence but I did not claim from her the damage to my
vehicle. After the trial, court found the plaintiff at fault. So, the complaint of Vanessa was dismissed. So panalo
ako. Balikan ko siya ngayon. This time I will file a case against her to recover damages for the damage to my car
since I was able to prove that she was negligent and not me.
Q: What will happen to my case now?
A: My case will be dismissed because I did not raise that cause of action as a counterclaim. Compulsory yan
eh. So since you did not raise, is barred forever.

PROBLEM: Aileen files a case against me for recovery of a piece of land. After trial, talo ako. The court said
that I should return the land to her. So isinauli ko na. Ngayon, kailangan bayaran niya naman ako for the
necessary expenses. So, I will file a case against her. She moved to dismiss – barred, because I should have
raised that as a counterclaim. I cannot file another case involving that cause of action. That is the effect of failure
to raise the compulsory counterclaim in the case filed against you.

PROBLEM: Now, suppose the counterclaim is PERMISSIVE. Pauline files case against me for recovery of
land. My cause of action against her is damages arising against a vehicular collision. Obviously, the counterclaim
is permissive.
Q: Is the counterclaim allowed?
A: Yes, allowed.

Q: Pauline will file a case against me for damages arising from vehicular collision. My decision is not to file
a counterclaim but to file another case against her. Is that allowed?
A: Yes, that is allowed. Meaning, I may or may not raise it as a counterclaim because it is permissive. I am
permitted to raise it as a counterclaim but I am not obliged. I may decided to file another action against you. That
is the importance between a compulsory counterclaim and a permissive counterclaim.

Third Requisite: IT DOES NOT REQUIRE FOR ITS ADJUDICATION PRESENCE OF THIRD
PARTIES OF WHOM THE COURT CANNOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION.

Meaning, if my counterclaim against you will involve the presence of an indispensable party who is, let’s say,
abroad, and therefore, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over him, and since it involves an indispensable party,
I will not raise it as a counterclaim.

Q: Will it be barred?
A: NO. If I will file my counterclaim, it will involve another party who is indispensable. The trouble is, he is
not around. Therefore, the counterclaim is not barred because the third element is missing.

Fourth Element: THAT THE COUNTERCLAIM MUST BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF

THE COURT BOTH AS TO THE AMOUNT AND NATURE THEREOF.

Q: I will file a case against you for forcible entry. I want to recover a piece of land. Where is the jurisdiction
of that case?
A: MTC. Squatting. I will recover a land from a squatter.

Review: In the Law on Property, even if you are a possessor in bad faith, he is entitled to reimbursement for
necessary expenses. The theory there is, even if he is a possessor in bad faith, the expenses redounded to the
benefit of the land owner. Anyway, you will spend them just the same as the land owner will have to spend for
them. So it will not be fair if he is not reimbursed. That’s our premise, noh?

PROBLEM: Now, the defendant would like to claim for reimbursement for the necessary expenses that he
spent in my lot. The case I filed against you is forcible entry in the MTC. Your necessary expenses amount to
P300,000.
Q: Should you raise it as a compulsory counterclaim in the forcible entry case?
A: NO.

Q: Does it arise out of or connected with the transaction which is the subject matter of the main action? Why
not compulsory?
A: Because the MTC has no jurisdiction over the P300,000 amount for the necessary expenses. This time,
that is the missing element.

Q: How will the defendant claim reimbursement?

A: He has to file with the RTC a case for reimbursement. He cannot use that as a counterclaim for the
forcible entry case because the MTC has no jurisdiction on a counterclaim where the amount is over
P200,000.00.
 I will reverse the problem:
PROBLEM: The plaintiff filed against the defendant an action for accion publiciana – recovery for a piece of
land where the value of the property is P1 million. So the case should be filed in the RTC. Now, the defendant is
claiming for the reimbursement of the improvements thereon (necessary expenses) amounting to P50,000.
Q: Should the defendant raise that as a counterclaim in the accion publiciana case?
A: YES.

In the first example, the counterclaim is above the jurisdiction of the MTC. This time, the amount for the
counterclaim is below the jurisdiction of the RTC. So the RTC can claim jurisdiction.

Q: How can the RTC try a counterclaim when the claim is only P50,000?
A: It is in accordance with the exception under Section 7: “except that in an original action before the RTC,
the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.” This means that the main action is
accion publiciana—RTC. The counterclaim is reimbursement for necessary expenses with arose out of the same
land. Normally, the RTC cannot try that but the answer to this question is YES.

The RTC can award a claim for damages even though the claim is below its jurisdiction. The principle is:
Since the counterclaim is compulsory, jurisdiction over the main action automatically carries with it jurisdiction
over the compulsory counterclaim. The compulsory counterclaim is merely incidental to the main action.
Jurisdiction of the RTC over the main action necessarily carries with it jurisdiction over the compulsory
counterclaim which is merely ancillary.

But the first example is baliktad. If the main action is with the MTC, it cannot try the counterclaim with the
RTC. It is beyond its jurisdiction. It is not covered by the exception. But if it is the main action which is within
the jurisdiction of the RTC, it can try a counterclaim which is below its jurisdiction provided it arose out or is
connected with the transaction.

That exception is not written in the prior rules but it is a recognized exception laid down by the SC which is
now written down in the law. In the case of

MACEDA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

176 SCRA 440

HELD: “The jurisdiction of the MTC in a civil action for sum of money is limited to a demand
that does not exceed P100,000 (now P200,000) exclusive of interest and costs. A counterclaim
beyond its jurisdiction and limit may be pleaded only by way of defense to weaken the plaintiff’s
claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief.”

Fifth Requisite: THE DEFENDING PARTY HAS A COUNTERCLAIM AT THE

TIME HE FILES HIS ANSWER.

How can I make a claim against you which is not yet existing? Even if all the other requisites are present, the
counterclaim would still not be compulsory because how can one invoke something now which he can acquire in
the future?

So, those are the five essential elements. You remove one, the counterclaim becomes permissive.

Q: Again. What is the importance of distinguishing whether the counterclaim is compulsory or permissive?
A: If the counterclaim is compulsory, the defendant is obliged under the law to raise it as a counterclaim in
the action where he is being sued. If he fails to invoke it, it is barred forever (Rule 9 Section 2).
If the counterclaim is permissive, the defendant has a choice of raising it as a counterclaim in the case filed
against him or he may decide to file another action against the plaintiff, raising it as his cause of action. It is
permitted but not obliged.
COUNTERCLAIMS IN CRIMINAL CASES
 JAVIER vs. IAC
171 SCRA 605

FACTS: The Javier spouses filed a criminal case against Leon Gutierrez Jr, under BP 22 or the
Bouncing Check Law, for issuing a bad check. The criminal case was filed before the RTC of Makati.
The complainants did not reserve the civil action. The implication is that the claim for civil liability is
deemed instituted with the criminal case.
Gutierrez in turn filed a civil action for damages against the Javier spouses in the RTC of
Catarman, Northern Samar, where he accused spouses of having tricked him into signing the check.
According to him, “because you tricked me into signing the check for which you are suing me, I’m
holding you liable for damages”.
What happened now is that he was being criminally sued in Makati but defending himself in
Catarman, Northern Samar. He is explaining in the Samar court what he should be doing in the
Makati court.

HELD: The civil case in Samar should be dismissed. It must be in the Makati court that Gutierrez,
as accused in the criminal charge of violation of BP 22, should explain why he issued the bouncing
check. He should explain that story in Makati and not in Samar.
This should have been done in the form of a counterclaim for damages for the alleged deception
by the Javier spouses. In fact, the counterclaim was compulsory and should have been filed by
Gutierrez upon the implied institution of the civil action for damages in the criminal case.

What the SC is saying is, since the civil action for damages is impliedly instituted in the criminal case, and he
wants to hold you liable for filing this case, he should file a counterclaim against you in the criminal case. What is
unique was that for the first time in the Philippine Procedural Law, SC laid down the rule that there is such thing
as a counterclaim in a criminal case, because, normally, counterclaims are only recognized in civil cases. But since
the civil action is deemed instituted in the criminal case, the accused can file a counterclaim against the offended
party in the criminal action.

The trouble in this ruling is that, it has been subjected to a lot of criticisms by academicians – professors of
Remedial Law, authors – they criticized the ruling. It provokes more problems than answers. A justice of the SC
remarked, “I think we made a mistake (privately ba) in the Javier ruling. Kaya it was never repeated.

The SC, in 1997, had another chance to comment on Javier in the case of—

CABAERO vs. CANTOS

271 SCRA 392, en banc

NOTE: Here, the Javier ruling was set aside.

HELD: “The logic and cogency of Javier notwithstanding, some reservations and concerns were
voiced out by members of the Court during the deliberations on the present case. These were
engendered by the obvious lacuna in the Rules of Court, which contains no express provision for the
adjudication of a counterclaim in a civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal case.”
“By the foregoing discussion, we do not imply any fault in Javier. The real problem lies in the
absence of clear-cut rules governing the prosecution of impliedly instituted civil actions and the
necessary consequences and implications thereof. For this reason, the counter-claim of the accused
cannot be tried together with the criminal case because, as already discussed, it will unnecessarily
complicate and confuse the criminal proceedings. Thus, the trial court should confine itself to the
criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused arising out of the crime. The counter-
claim (and cross-claim or third party complaint, if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance
without prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.”
“At balance, until there are definitive rules of procedure to govern the institution, prosecution and
resolution of the civil aspect and the consequences and implications thereof impliedly instituted in a
criminal case, trial courts should limit their jurisdiction to the civil liability of the accused arising from
the criminal case.”
 This means SC admitted that the Javier doctrine put more problems and confusions in the absence of specific
rules. The counterclaim should not be tried together in a criminal case. The trial court should confine itself in the
criminal action and that the counterclaim should be set aside without prejudice to its right in setting up actions in
the civil action.

NOTE: The ruling in the case of CABAERO is now incorporated in the last paragraph of Section 1, paragraph
[a], Rule 111 of the 2000 Revised Criminal Procedure:

“No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be

filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action
which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a
separate civil action.”

D.) CROSS-CLAIMS

Sec. 8. Cross-claim. A cross-claim is any claim by one party

against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence
that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein. Such cross-claim may include a claim that
the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the
cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action
against the cross-claimant.(7)

A cross claim is a claim by one party against a co-party. It may be a claim by defendant against his co-
defendant arising out of the subject matter of the main action.

EXAMPLE: Jet and Pao are solidary debtors for the sum of P100,000. Jet and Pao signed a promissory note
in favor of Dean to collect the sum of P100,000. However, although Jet signed the promissory note, he did not
get a single centavo. Everything went to Pao. Both of them are now sued. According to Jet, “Actually there is a
possibility that I will pay the P100,000 to Dean when actually I did not even get a single centavo out of it.
Everything went to Pao [bwiset!]!” Therefore, Jet will now file a case against Pao where he will allege that if Jet
will be held liable to Dean, Pao will reimburse him (Jet). So, Jet will also file a claim in the same action against
Pao.

Now, the claim filed by Jet against his co-defendant Pao is called a CROSS-CLAIM where Jet is called
defendant in the case filed by Dean and a cross-claimant against Pao. Pao is also the defendant in the case filed by
Dean and a cross-defendant with respect to the cross-claim filed by Jet. So that is another case which a defendant
is filing against another defendant.

The law says that the “cross-claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
original action.” In other words, the cross-claimant will assert that the cross-defendant is liable to him for all or
part of the claim asserted in the main action against the cross-claimant.

Take note that the cross-claim of Jet against Pao is merely an off-short of the case filed by Dean against Jet
and Pao. Meaning, it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the case filed by
Dean against them.

PROBLEM: Suppose Dean files a case against Jet and Pao to collect a promissory note signed by Jet and
Pao. Tapos, sinabi ni Jet in his cross-claim, “Well, since we are already here, I also have a claim against Pao for
damages arising from a vehicular collision.”
Q: Is the cross-claim allowed in the problem?
A: NO. The cross-claim is improper. It has no connection with the complaint of Dean against Jet and Pao. A
counter-claim must always arise out of a transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the main action.

BAR QUESTION: Distinguish a COUNTERCLAIM from a CROSS-CLAIM.

 A: The following are the distinctions:
A COUNTERCLAIM is a complaint by the defendant against the plaintiff, whereas,
A CROSS-CLAIM is a claim by a defendant against a co-defendant;

The life of the CROSS-CLAIM depends on the life of the main action. A cross-claim is merely a
consequence of the case filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. No main action, no cross-
claim (RUIZ, JR. vs. CA, infra). Whereas,
In a COUNTERCLAIM, you can kill the main action, still the counterclaim survives.

A COUNTERCLAIM may be asserted whether or not it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence
that is the subject matter of the action, whereas,
A CROSS-CLAIM must always arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject
matter of the action.

Example: Pao case filed against Jet to collect a loan. Jet files a COUNTERCLAIM against
Pao to recover a piece of land. That is allowed and that is a permissive counterclaim. But
suppose Dean files a case to collect a loan against Jet and Pao. Jet files a CROSS-CLAIM
against Pao to recover a piece of land.
Q: Will it be allowed?
A: Not allowed! It has no connection with the subject matter of the main action.

Take note that a cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction of
occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. So, a cross-claim may arise
our either of the original action or counter-claim therein.

EXAMPLE: Jet and Pao file a case against Dean. Dean files his answer with a counterclaim against the
plaintiffs Jet and Pao. So Jet and Pao will now become defendants with respect to the counterclaim filed by Dean.
So Jet now can file a cross-claim against Pao arising out of the counterclaim. So this is an example of a plaintiff
filing a cross-claim against his co-plaintiff because of the counterclaim.

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE:

Mortz and Charles, plaintiffs, filed a case against Jet and Pao, defendants. There are two plaintiffs suing two
different defendants on a promissory note. Both Jet and Pao signed the promissory note in favor of Mortz and
Charles:

COMPLAINT (Collection case – Main Action):

MORTZ and CHARLES [total: 785 lbs.], plaintiffs
-versus-
JET and PAO, defendants

Now, according to Jet, every centavo of the loan went to Pao. So Jet files a cross-claim against Pao:
CROSS-CLAIM ON THE MAIN ACTION
Defendant JET [feather weight], now cross-claimant
-versus-
Defendant PAO [heavy weight], now cross-defendant

Jet also says, “Actually may reklamo ako sa inyong dalawa (Mortz and Charles) because you entered my land
and gathered some of its product [mga patay gutom!!]”. Nag-file siya ng counterclaim against both Mortz and
Charles. In the counter-claim of Jet, ang defendants ay si Mortz and Charles for the accounting of the
improvements on the land:

COUNTERCLAIM OF JET
 Defendant JET, now plaintiff
-versus-
Plaintiffs MORTZ and CHARLES, now co-defendants

Mortz now will answer the counterclaim of Jet, “Actually, the damages on land was not caused by me. Si Charles
man ang may kasalanan ba! Yun ang patay gutom!!” So Mortz files a cross-claim against co-plaintiff Charles
arising out to the counterclaim of Jet:

CROSS-CLAIM ARISING FROM THE COUNTERCLAIM OF JET

Plaintiff MORTZ, now cross-claimant
-versus-
Plaintiff CHARLES, now cross-defendant

Now, according to Pao, “Actually last month, a car owned by both of you (Mortz and Charles) bumped my car
and that my car was damaged.” So, nag-file naman si Pao ng counterclaim against Mortz and Charles for the
damage of the car.

COUNTERCLAIM OF PAO
Defendant PAO, now plaintiff
-versus-
Plaintiffs MORTZ and CHARLES, now defendants

Sabi ni Charles, “I’m not the owner of the car. Si Mortz ang owner. Gago!” So cross-claim naman siya (Charles)
kay Mortz:

CROSS-CLAIM ARISING FROM THE COUNTERCLAIM OF PAO

Plaintiff CHARLES, now cross-claimant
-versus-
Plaintiff MORTZ, now cross-defendant

Ilan lahat ang kaso? There are six (6) cases which are to be decided in the same action. This rarely happens,
but it is possible under the rules. The obvious PURPOSE of these is to avoid multiplicity of suits and toward
these ends. According to the SC, the rules allow in a certain cases and even compel a petitioner to combine in one
litigation these conflicting claims most particularly when they arise out of the same transaction. The rule does not
only allow a permissive counterclaim but the parties are even compelled to raise them in a compulsory counter-
claim.

RUIZ, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

212 SCRA 660

FACTS: Dean files a case against Jet and Pao. Jet files a cross-claim against Pao. After a while,
the case against Jet and Pao was dismissed.

ISSUE: What happens to the cross-claim of Jet against Pao?

HELD: When the main action was dismissed, the cross-action must also be dismissed. The life of
a cross-claim depends on the life of the main action. If the main action is dismissed, the cross-claim
will have to be automatically dismissed.
“A cross-claim could not be the subject of independent adjudication once it lost the nexus upon
which its life depended. The cross-claimants cannot claim more rights than the plaintiffs themselves,
on whose cause of action the cross-claim depended. The dismissal of the complaint divested the
cross-claimants of whatever appealable interest they might have had before and also made the cross-
claim itself no longer viable”
 Whereas, the counterclaim can exist alone without the complaint.

EXAMPLE: Pao filed a case against Jet for the recovery of a piece of land. Jet’s counterclaim is damages
arising from a vehicular accident. Na-dismiss ang kaso ni Pao – wala na yung recovery of a piece of land. The
counterclaim of Jet can still remain alive even if the main action is dead.

But in a cross-claim, once the main action is dead, the cross-claim is also automatically dead too. What is
there to reimburse when the complainant has been dismissed? Aber?!

COUNTER COUNTERCLAIM and COUNTER CROSS-CLAIM

Sec. 9. Counter-counterclaims and counter-cross-claims. A

counterclaim may be asserted against an original counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-
claimant.(n)

Section 9 is a new provision. There is such a thing as counter-counterclaim and counter-cross-claim. The
concept of counter-counter-claim is not new. As a matter of fact, that was asked in the bar years ago.

EXAMPLE: Chams filed against you an action to collect a loan. You filed a counterclaim against her to
recover a piece of land. Of course, she have to answer your counterclaim. But she will say, “Actually you have
been molesting me with your claim when actually you have no right over my land.” So, nag-file siya ng
injunction to stop you from molesting her. In other words, based on your counter-claim against her to recover my
land, she will file a counterclaim to stop you from molesting her. In effect, there is counter-claim to a counter-
claim.

COUNTER-CROSS-CLAIM. Nag cross-claim ka sa akin, mag cross-claim din ako sa iyo.

E.) REPLY

Sec. 10. Reply. A reply is a pleading, the office or function

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 the 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.(11)

ILLUSTRATION: Plaintiff files a complaint against a defendant to collect an unpaid loan. D files his answer
and raises a new matter, affirmative defense. According to the defendant, the obligation is already paid. Plaintiff
said that you have paid the other loan. In other words, the plaintiff would like to deny or dispute the defendant’s
affirmative defense of payment.

Q: Can I file a pleading to dispute your defense?

A: Yes, that pleading is called a REPLY.

Q: How do you classify a reply?

A: It is a responsive pleading because it is the response of the plaintiff to the affirmative defense raised in the
defendant’s answer.

An answer is a response to the complaint and the reply is a response to the answer.
 Q: Halimbawa, you would like to answer my reply, what pleading would you file?
A: None. That is the last pleading. Otherwise, walang katapusan and pleading natin. So, reply is considered
as the last pleading.

Q: Suppose I filed a complaint, you filed an answer invoking payment. I failed to reply. What is the effect if
the plaintiff fails to reply? Is he admitting the correctness of the defense?
A: No. The failure to file a reply has no effect. Section 10 says that if a party does file such reply, all the new
matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. Meaning, all the affirmative defenses raised in the
answers are automatically denied.
So, whether you file a reply or not, the defenses are deemed automatically disputed. The filing of a reply is
OPTIONAL.

A reply should not be confused with the answer to a counterclaim which is also filed by the plaintiff.

Q: Give the distinctions between ANSWER TO COUNTER-CLAIM and REPLY.

A: The following:
A REPLY is a response to the defenses interposed by the defendant in his answer, whereas
An ANSWER TO A COUNTERCLAIM is a response to a cause of action by the defendant against
the plaintiff;

The filing of a REPLY is generally optional, whereas

The filing of an ANSWER TO A COUNTERCLAIM is generally mandatory under Rule 11 because
if the plaintiff fails to file an answer to the counterclaim, he will be declared in default on the
counterclaim.

OUTLINE OF FLOW OF PLEADINGS

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
1. Complaint
2. a.) Answer
b.) Counterclaim
3. a.) Reply to answer
b.) Answer to counterclaim
4. R ep ly to an s w er to
counterclaim

F. THIRD (FOURTH, ETC.) – PARTY COMPLAINT

Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.) - party complaint. 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. (12a)

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT is the procedure for bringing into a case a third person who is not a party to
the case.

So, plaintiff files a case against the defendant. Defendant believes that a stranger or somebody else should be
brought into the case and therefore files a motion in court that he be allowed to file a third-party complaint against
such person and therefore the defendant is called third party plaintiff and that third person is a third-party
defendant.

EXAMPLE : A plaintiff files a case against a defendant to collect a loan when there are two debtors and one
of them is compelled to pay everything so the defendant will drag into the picture the co-debtor for contribution
or indemnity. Well, you already learned if there are two of them all he has to do is to file a cross-claim against his
co-defendant. BUT since he is the only one, the remedy is to avail of Section 11.

Take note that filing a third-party complaint is not a matter of right. THERE MUST BE LEAVE OF
COURT. So unlike counterclaim or cross-claim, you do not need any motion or leave of court. Just file your
answer to the counterclaim of cross-claim and that will do, but not a third-party complaint.

The purpose of third-party complaint is for contribution, indemnity, subrogation and other relief in respect of
his opponent’s claim.

That is why there is a close relationship between a cross-claim and a third-party complaint because a
cross-claim must also be arising out of the subject matter of the main action. A third-party complaint must be also
related to the main action. It cannot be a cause of action which has no relation to the main action.

EXAMPLE: The plaintiff files a case against the surety and the principal debtor, so both of them are
defendants, and the surety seeks reimbursement for whatever amount he may be compelled to pay the plaintiff.
What kind of pleading would he file against his co-defendant (the principal debtor)? CROSS-CLAIM.

BUT if the plaintiff file a case ONLY against the surety, because anyway the principal debtor is not an
indispensable party and the surety would like to seek reimbursement from the person who benefited from the
loan, he cannot file a cross-claim against anybody because he is the lone defendant. It is possible for him to just
file an answer . If he loses and pays the plaintiff, then he will file another case against the principal debtor for
reimbursement.

But if he wants everything to be resolved in the same case, what kind pleading will he file? He must resort a
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT and implead the principal debtor.

The PURPOSE of a third-party complaint is for the third party plaintiff to ask the third party defendant for:
Contribution;
Indemnity;
Subrogation; or
any other relief in respect to the opponent’s claim.

CONTRIBUTION:

Example #1: Two debtors borrowed P100,000 from Janis (creditor) and they shared the money 50-50. When
the debt fell due, the creditor filed a case against one of them. So, one of them is being made to pay the
P100,000. Not only his share but also his co-solidary debtor. So if I am the one liable when actually my real
liability is only 50,000. What will I do? I will file a third party complaint against my co-debtor for contribution.

Example #2: If Andrew and Carlo are guilty of a quasi-delict and the injured party files an action for
damages against Andrew only, Andrew may file a third-party complaint against Carlo for contribution, their
liability being solidary (Article 2194, New Civil Code)

INDEMNIFICATION:

Example #1: Two people signed a promissory note in favor of the creditor. But actually the entire amount
went to you and none for me. When the note fell due, I was the one sued. So I will file a third-party complaint
against you for indemnity. You have to return to me every centavo that I will pay the creditor.

Example #2: A surety sued for recovery of debt by the creditor may file a third-party complaint against the
principal debtor for indemnity. (Article 2047, New Civil Code)
 SUBROGATION:

Subrogation - You step into the shoes of someone else. Your obligation is transferred to me.

EXAMPLE: Where a contract is leased by a lessee and he subleased the property to a third person who is
now occupying the property. In effect, the sub-lessee stepped into the shoes of the original lessee. If the property
is damaged and the lessor sues the lessee for damages to his leased property, the lessee or sub-lessor can file a
third-party complaint and have the sub-lessee for subrogation because actually, you stepped into the shoes when
you occupied the leased property. (Articles 1651 and 1654, New Civil Code)

For ANY OTHER RELIEF IN RESPECT TO THE OPPONENTS CLAIM, very broad:

EXAMPLE: When I buy the property of Mr. Cruz and after a while, here comes Mr. Dee filing a case against
me to claim ownership of the land. But I bought it from Mr. Cruz who warranted that he is the real owner. So I
will now file third-party complaint against Mr. Cruz to enforce his warranty – warranty against eviction. (Article
1548, New Civil Code)

Take note that there is always a connection between the main complaint and the third-party complaint because
the condition is “contribution, indemnification, subrogation and any other relief in respect to your opponents
claim.” There is always a relation between the third party-complaint and the main complaint against you. Here is
a bar question...

BAR QUESTION: Janis files a case against Nudj to recover an unpaid load. Now the reason is that Carlo
also owes Nudj. Nudj says, “I cannot pay you because there is a person who has also utang to me. What I will
pay you depends on his payment to me.” File agad si Nudj ng third-party complaint against Carlo. Is the third-
party complaint proper?
A: NO. There is no connection between the main action and the 3rd-party complaint – the loan of Nudj to
Janis and the loan of Andrew to Nudj. Walang connection. Anong pakialam ni Janis sa utang ni Andrew kay
Nudj? Not in respect to his opponent’s claim.

BAR QUESTION: How do you determine whether a 3rd-party complaint is proper or improper? What are
the tests to determine its propriety?
A: Case of

CAPAYAS vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

77 PHIL. 181

HELD: There are four (4) possible tests to determine the propriety of a third-party complaint. In
order for it to be allowed, it must pass one of them. That is the reason when you file it, you need the
permission of the court to determine whether it is proper or not and the original plaintiff may object to the
propriety of the third-party complaint.

There are the FOUR TESTS (any one will do):

A third-party complaint is proper if it arises out of the same transaction on which plaintiff is based;

EXAMPLE: A creditor sued only one solidary debtor. So you can file a third-party complaint
for contribution. Anyway, there is only one loan and our liability arises out of the same
promissory note

A third-party complaint is proper if the third-party’s complaint, although arising out of another transaction, is
connected with the plaintiff’s claim.

EXAMPLE: The car owner is sued for culpa aquiliana for damages arising from vehicular
collision and he files a third-party complaint against the insurance company for indemnity based
 on the contract of insurance. So it is connected with plaintiff’s claim, and that is precisely the
purpose of my insurance coverage.

Third party defendant would be liable to the original plaintiff's claim. Although the third party defendant's
liability arises out of another transaction.

EXAMPLE: Sublease. Roy leased his property to Eric. Eric subleased it to Rudolph. If Roy’s
property is damaged, Roy will sue Eric. But Eric will also sue Rudolph. The sub-lessor has the
right to file a third-party complaint against the sub-lessee for the damaged leased property which
is now occupied by the sub-lessee. The third-party defendant Rudolph would be liable to
plaintiff’s (Roy’s) claim. Rudolph will be liable to Roy for Roy’s claim against Eric although the
liability of Rudolph arises out of another transaction (Sub-lease contract)

The third party defendant may assert any defense which the third party plaintiff has or may have against
plaintiff’s claim.

EXAMPLE: Tato is a registered owner of a car and then sold it to Philip. Philip is the actual
owner. However, Philip did not register the sale to the LTO. The registered owner is si Tato lang
gihapon although he is no longer the real owner. While Philip was driving that car it bumped the
car of Lewee Tanduay. Lewee researched the owner of the car at LTO and ang lumabas ay si Tato.
So ang ginawa ni Lewee, ang kinasuhan nya ay si Tato na walang malay...under the law, the
registered owner is liable. Of course, when Tato got the complaint, “Wala akong alam sa sinasabi
nyo, that car is no longer mine. I sold that two years ago, I have no idea what happened.”
So obviously, Tato arrived at the conclusion that si Philip and nakabangga. Tato filed a third-
party complaint against Philip because he is the real owner. When Philip got the third-party
complaint, and because he knows the story, in fact he was the one driving, ang ginawa niya,
nilabanan niya ng diretso si Lewee. Meaning, instead of Tato fighting Lewee, Philip fought Lewee
directly. Frontal na ba. Sabi ni Philip, “I was not at fault, you (Lewee) are at fault.” So here is a
situation where Lewee sues Tato, Tato sues Philip but Philip fights Lewee, as if he is the real
defendant, then the third party complaint must be proper. It must be related.

So those are the samples of third party complaint which are correct.

Take note that there is a close similarity between a third-party complaint and a cross-claim because as we
have learned, a cross-claim must also be related to the same action. So we will go to some interesting case on
third-party complaint.

SAMALA vs. VICTOR

170 SCRA 453

FACTS: This case involves a vehicular accident. Philip, while riding on a passenger jeep owned
by Tato, the jeep was bumped by the truck of Lewee, injuring Philip. Philip filed a case for damages
arising from breach of contract against Tato. Tato filed a third-party complaint against Lewee. After
trial, the court found that Tato has not at fault. The fault is entirely against Lewee . So the action
against Tato was dismissed, but the court held that Lewee be directly liable to Philip.
It was questioned by Lewee. Lewee claims that is should be Tato who is liable to Philip because
Philip did not sue me (Lewee), “Bakit ako ang ma-liable hindi naman ako ang dinemanda ni Philip?
So procedurally, I am liable to Tato, Tato is liable to Philip.”

ISSUE #1: Can Lewee, a third-party defendant, be held liable directly to Philip, the original
plaintiff?
HELD: YES, that is possible. In a third-party complaint, normally Lewee is liable to Tato. But
Lewee can be made liable to Philip, or Lewee can be made liable to both Philip and Tato because that
is covered by the phrase “OR ANY OTHER RELIEF” – so broad that it cover a direct liability of a
 third party defendant to the original plaintiff.

ISSUE #2: How can the court award damages to Philip based on the theory of culpa aquiliana
when his complaint is based on culpa contractual? Can Lewee be held liable for culpa-contractual?
HELD: YES. That is also possible because “the primary purpose of this rule is to avoid circuitry
of action and to dispose of in one litigation, the entire subject matter arising from a particular set of
fact it is immaterial that the third-party plaintiff asserts a cause of action against the third party
defendant on a theory different from that asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant. It has
likewise been held that a defendant in a contract action may join as third-party defendants those liable
to him in tort for the plaintiff’s claim against him or directly to the plaintiff.”

Another interesting case which is to be compared with the abovementioned case is the 1989 case of

SHAFER vs. JUDGE OF RTC OF OLONGAPO CITY

167 SCRA 386

NOTE: This case although it refers to third-party complaint is related to criminal procedure. This
is similar to the case of JAVIER where the issue is, is there such a thing as a counterclaim in a criminal
case where the offended party did not make a reservation. In SHAFER, is there such a thing as a third-
party complaint in a criminal case?

FACTS: Shafer while driving his car covered by TPL, bumped another car driven by T. T filed a
criminal case against S for physical injuries arising from reckless imprudence. T did not make any
reservation to file a separate civil action. So obviously, the claim for civil liability is deemed instituted.
Shafer was covered by the insurance, so he filed a third-party complaint against the insurance
company insofar as the civil liability is concerned. The insurance company questioned the propriety of
d third-party complaint in a criminal case, because according to the insurance company, the third-party
complaint is entirely different from the criminal liability.

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of a third-party complaint in a criminal case is procedurally
correct.

HELD: Yes, it is proper. There could be a third party complaint in a criminal case because an
offense causes two classes of injuries – the SOCIAL and the PERSONAL injury. In this case, the
civil aspect of the criminal case is deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal case. Shafer may raise
all defenses available to him in so far as the criminal and civil aspects are concerned. Shafer’s claim
of indemnity against the insurance company are also the claim by the victim in the criminal claim.
Therefore Shafer’s claim against the insurance company is related to the criminal case. So similar to
Javier that an accused may also file a compulsory counterclaim in a criminal case when there is no
reservation.

BUT in the light of the ruling in the case of

CABAERO vs. CANTOS, supra

The SHAFER ruling has to be set aside for the meantime because there is no such thing as third-
party complaint in criminal cases now. In other words, forget it in the meantime. Also, forget
counterclaims in criminal cases even if they arose out of the main action.
This case refers to JAVIER on whether or not there is such a thing as a compulsory counterclaim
in criminal cases. SC said, “Huwag muna samok!” If we will allow it in criminal cases it will only
complicate and confuse the case. The attention might be divested to counterclaims or cross-claims or
third-party complaints, etc.

HELD: “The trial court should confine itself to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of
the accused arising out of the crime. The counter-claim (and cross-claim or third party complaint, if
any) should be set aside or refused cognizance without prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings
 at the proper time.”

We will go to the old case of

REPUBLIC vs. CENTRAL SURETY CO.

25 SCRA 641 [1968]

FACTS : Hannah filed a case against Rina for a liability amounting to P300,000. So it was filed in
RTC. Rina filed a third-party complaint against ConCon Insurance Company for indemnity insurance
but the maximum insurance is only P50,000. The insurance company moved to dismiss on the
ground that the court has no jurisdiction because third-party complaint is only for P50,000 which is
supposed to be within the competence of the MTC.

ISSUE: Is the insurance company correct?

HELD: NO. The insurance company is wrong. The third-party complaint is only incidental. The
third-party complaint need not be within the jurisdiction of the RTC where the principal action is
pending because the third-party complaint is really a continuation and an ancillary to the principal
action. If the court acquires jurisdiction over the main action, automatically, it acquires jurisdiction
over the third-party complain which is mainly a continuation of the principal action.

Now, the same situation happened in another case. The case of

EASTER ASSURANCE vs. CUI

105 SCRA 642

FACTS : Carol is a resident of Davao City. Cathy is a resident of Cebu City. Carol filed a case
before the RTC of Davao City against Cathy. Cathy files a third-party complaint against Joy, a
resident of Manila. Is the venue proper?
HELD: The venue is proper because the venue of the main action is proper. So automatically
third-party complaint is also proper. The third-party has to yield to the jurisdiction and venue of the
main action.

Now of course, if there’s such a thing as 3rd party complaint, there is also a 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th complaint.
That is possible but everything is with respect to his opponent’s claim.

EXAMPLE:

A B C D E
A files a complaint B files a 3rd party C files a 4th party D files a 5th party
against B complaint against C complaint against D complaint against E

A’s car was bumped by B. But B contented that the reason that he bumped A’s car was because he was
bumped by C and the same goes to C, D, E. B then files a 3rd party complaint against C. C files a 4th party
complaint against D. D files a 5th party complaint against E. Meaning, pasahan, ba. They will throw the liability
to the one who did it. That is a good hypothetical example of how a fourth, fifth, sixth party complaint can come
into play.

Sec. 12. Bringing new parties. - When the presence of parties

other than those to the original action is required for the
granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim
or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as
defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained.
 The best example of Section 12 is the case of:

SAPUGAY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

183 SCRA 464

FACTS: Mobil Philippines filed a case against Sapugay, its gasoline dealer. Sapugay filed a
answer and interposed a counterclaim for damages against Mobil and included Cardenas (the manager
of Mobil) who is not a plaintiff.

ISSUE: Whether or not the inclusion of Cardenas in the counterclaim is proper where he is not a
plaintiff in the Mobil case.

HELD: The inclusion of Cardenas is proper. The general rule that the defendant cannot by a
counterclaim bring into the action any claim against persons other than the plaintiff, admits of an
exception under this provision (Section 12) – meaning, if it is necessary to include a 3rd person in a
counterclaim or cross-claim, the court can order him to be brought in as defendants. In effect, the
bringing of Cardenas in the case is sanctioned by the Rules.

The case of SAPUGAY should not be confused with the case of:

CHAVEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

198 SCRA 282

FACTS: Petitioner Francisco Chavez (former solicitor general) represented the government for
PCGG. The case arose out of PCGG cases wherein Enrile was sued for accumulation of his ill-gotten
wealth. Enrile filed an answer to the complaint. Enrile contends that the case is harassment suit whose
mastermind was the Solicitor General himself. Enrile files a counterclaim against Chavez. (Enrile’s
lawyer maybe well aware of the Sapugay case the one sued is the lawyer.) Chavez questioned such
counterclaim contending that he was not a plaintiff. Sandiganbayan denied such contention.

HELD: The inclusion of plaintiff’s lawyer is improper.

“To allow a counterclaim against a lawyer who files a complaint for his clients, who is merely
their representative in court and not a plaintiff or complainant in the case would lead to mischievous
consequences. A lawyer owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the
maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. A lawyer
cannot properly attend to his duties towards his client if, in the same case, he is kept busy defending
himself.”

Q: Is the SC suggesting that a lawyer who sued in a harassment case can get away with it? Does that mean to
say that the lawyer is immune from suit?
A: NO, the SC does not say a lawyer enjoys a special immunity from damage suits. However, when he acts
in the name of the client, he should not be sued in a counterclaim in the very same case where he has filed only as
a counsel and not as party. Only claims for alleged damages or other causes of action should be filed in a separate
case. Thus, if you feel that the lawyer is acting maliciously, you file a complaint but in a separate case. That’s
why the case of Sapugay should not be confused with Chavez.

Sec. 13. Answer to third (fourth, etc.) party complaint. - 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 in respect of the latter's claim against the
third-party plaintiff. (n)
 ILLUSTRATIONS:

A files a case against B

B files a 3rd party complaint against C

A vs. B; B vs. C. Normally, B will defend himself against the complaint of A and C will defend himself in the
complaint of B. That is supposed to be the pattern. Normally, C does not file a direct claim against A. But the law
allows C in defending himself, to answer the claim of A. The law allows him to file a direct counterclaim against
A.

If C has the right to frontally meet the action filed by A – meaning, C will fight A directly – if C has the right
to assert any defense which B has against A and even for C to litigate against A, then it must be a proper third
party complaint. That has happened several times.

EXAMPLE: B owns a car which was already sold to C. The trouble is that B never registered the transaction.
On the record, B is still the registered owner. Then C, while driving the car, meets an accident and injures A.
When A looked at the record, the owner is B. So A files a case against B. So B will file a third party complaint
against the real owner (C). Now, C can frontally meet the complaint filed by A. That is the best example where
you have the right against the original plaintiff or even assert a counterclaim against him. As a matter of fact, that
last test is now incorporated as a new provision (Section 13).

In the case of:

SINGAPORE AIRLINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS

243 SCRA 143 [1995]

FACTS: Aying filed a case against Bugoy. Bugoy filed a third party complaint against and Cyle
who wants to frontally meet the main complaint filed by Aying

HELD: If that is your purpose, you have to file two (2) answers – you file an answer to the third
party complaint and you file a second answer to the main complaint filed by Aying.
“A third-party complaint involves an action separate and distinct from, although related to, the
main complaint. A third-party defendant who feels aggrieved by some allegations in the main
complaint should, aside from answering the third-party complaint, also answer the main complaint.”

Normally, Cyle answers the 3rd party complaint of Bugoy and does not answer to the complaint of Aying.
But according to SINGAPORE case, if Cyle feels aggrieved by the allegations of Aying, he should also answer
the main complaint of Aying. Practically, he shall answer the 3rd party complaint and the main complaint.

<
PAGE

PAGE 127
JBD