Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

000

Sps. Ponciano vs. Parentela, Jr.


GR No. 133284, 9 May 2000, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
Digested by PAT• Law 125 – Civil Procedure

Petitioners: Sps. Ponciano


Respondents: Hon. Judge Jose Parentela, Presiding Judge RTC Br.23, Sps. Clamosa
Nature of the case: Special Civil Action in the SC

Sps. Clamosa filed a complaint for sum of money against Sps. Ponciano. The latter filed an Answer
with compulsory counterclaim. The RTC, however, expunged the counterclaim from the records due
to non-submission of CNFS. SC held that it was unnecessary for Sps. Ponciano to submit a CNFS
since the same is required only in initiatory pleadings. A compulsory counterclaim is not an
initiatory pleading.

FACTS
 PRESPs Sps Clamosa filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages with the RTC
against PETs Sps. Ponciano for unpaid cost of labor and materials incurred by them.
 Sps. Ponciano filed their answer with compulsory counterclaim, alleging that they have paid
the total contract price agreed upon.
 Upon motion of Sps. Clamosa, the RTC ordered that Sps. Ponciano’s counterclaim be
stricken off the record for failure to comply with Administrative Circular No. 04-94 which
requires an affidavit of non-forum shopping for all initiatory pleadings in court.
 RTC denied Sps. Ponciano’s MR of that decision
 2nd Division of SC: affirmed RTC
 Thereafter, Sps. Ponciano filed an Answer with Amended Compulsory Counterclaim wherein
the amendment consisted of the addition of a certification under oath in compliance with the
circular.
 Initially, the RTC admitted the Answer but after filing of MR by Sps. Clamoa, it reversed its
previous decision and expunged the amended compulsory counter claim from the records.
 Hence, this petition where the Sps. Ponciano claims that the dismissal of their compulsory
counterclaim due to non-compliance with the circular was without prejudice. Thus, they
should be permitted to re-file their compulsory counterclaim.

ISSUES & HOLDING


 WoN a compulsory counterclaim pleaded in an answer must be accompanied with a CNFS-
NO

RATIO
The CNFS only required in an initiatory pleading or an incipient application of a party
asserting a claim for relief.
 The Administrative Circular has not 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
000
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.

Sps. Ponciano need not file a CNFS since their claims are not initiatory in character
 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 of it is within the jurisdiction of the court, and does not
require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction, it must be set up therein, and will be barred in the future if not set up.
 In this case, there is no doubt that the counterclaims pleaded by Sps. Ponciano are
compulsory in nature. Hence, CNFS is not required.

Похожие интересы