You are on page 1of 1

Evangeline Alday v.

FGU Insurance Corporation

GR No. 138822. 23 January 2001
Justice Gonzaga-Reyes

FGU Insurance Corporation filed a complaint with RTC of Makati alleging that Alday
owed it P114,650.76 representing unliquidated cash advances, unremitted costs of
premiums and other charges incurred by petitioner in the course of her work as an insurance
agent for respondent. Alday filed her answer by way of counterclaim, asserted her right for
payment of P104,893.45, representing direct commissions, profit commissions and
contingent bonuses, for accumulated premium reserves amounting to P500,000. FGU then
filed a Motion to Strike Out Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim And To Declare
Defendant In Default because Aldays answer was allegedly out of time. RTC denied the
motion. A few weeks later FGU filed a motion to dismiss Aldays counterclaim, contending
that RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the same because of the non-payment of docket
fees by petitioner. Trial court granted FGUs motion to dismiss Aldays counterclaim. CA
sustained trial courts decision, saying the counterclaim is merely permissive.

Whether or not the counterclaim of petitioner is permissive in nature or compulsory

Both. Decision modified. Compulsory counterclaim of petitioner for damages
reinstated. RTC is ordered to require Alday to pay prescribed docket fees for her
permissive 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 partys claim and does not require for its adjudication the
presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
In Valencia v. CA, the court capsulized tests used to determine w/n a counterclaim is
compulsory or permissive: 1) are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim &
counterclaim largely the same? 2) would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendants
claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? 3) will substantially the same evidence
support or refute plaintiffs claim as well as defendants counterclaim? 4) is there any logical
relation between claim & counterclaim?
Another test in Quintanilla v. CA is the compelling test of compulsoriness which
requires a logical relationship between claim and counterclaim, where conducting separate
trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort
and time by the parties and the court.
Aldays counterclaim for commissions, bonuses and accumulated premium reserves
is permissive. The evidence needed to prove her claims differs from that needed to establish
respondents demands for the recovery of cash accountabilities from Alday, such as cash
advances and costs of premiums. The recovery of FGUs claims is not contingent /
dependent upon establishing Aldays counterclaim, such that conducting separate trials will
not result in the substantial duplication of the time and effort of the court & parties. Alday
even declared that FGUs cause of action, unlike her own, was not based upon the Special
Agents Contract. But Aldays claims for damages are compulsory.
No need for Alday to pay docket fees for her compulsory counterclaim, but for trial
court to acquire jurisdiction over her permissive counterclaim, she is bound to pay the
prescribed docket fees. (Sun Insurance Office Ltd v. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion)
Thus, there is no need for respondent to file an answer until Alday has paid the
prescribed docket fees for only then shall the court acquire jurisdiction over such claim.