Counterclaim: permissive or compulsory?
In a permissive counterclaim, the docket and other lawful fees should be paid and the same should be accompanied by a certificate against forum shopping and certificate to file action issued by the proper Lupon Tagapamayapa. It should also be answered by the claiming party. It is NOT BARRED even if not set up in the action.
[1] A compulsory counterclaim that merely reiterates special defenses which are deemed controverted even without a reply, or raises issues which are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint need not be answered. However, a compulsory counterclaim which raises issues not covered by the complaint should be answered
In a compulsory counterclaim, on the other hand, no docket fee is paid and the certificates mentioned above are not required. If it is not raised in the answer, it shall be BARRED. (Rule 9, Section 2)
Let's take the following example:
X filed a suit for collection of P350,000 against Y in the Regional Trial Court. Aside from alleging payment as a defense, Y additionally set up counterclaims for P120,000 as damages and P25,000 as attorney’s fees as a result of the baseless filing of the complainant, as well as for P230,000 as the balance of the purchase price of the 3 machine guns he sold to X.
The Supreme Court once held: "The counterclaim for reimbursement of the value of the improvements is in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim. Thus, the failure by private respondents to set it up bars their right to raise it in a subsequent litigation. The rule on compulsory counterclaim is designed to achieve resolution of the whole controversy at one time and in one action to avoid multiplicity of suits." (Baclayon vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 89132. February 26, 1990)
Take note of the following:
The Supreme Court once held: "The counterclaim for reimbursement of the value of the improvements is in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim. Thus, the failure by private respondents to set it up bars their right to raise it in a subsequent litigation. The rule on compulsory counterclaim is designed to achieve resolution of the whole controversy at one time and in one action to avoid multiplicity of suits." (Baclayon vs. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 89132. February 26, 1990)
Take note of the following:
[1] A compulsory counterclaim that merely reiterates special defenses which are deemed controverted even without a reply, or raises issues which are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint need not be answered. However, a compulsory counterclaim which raises issues not covered by the complaint should be answered
[2] If the defendant has a compulsory counterclaim, he should not file a motion to dismiss but an answer with a counterclaim, with the ground for the motion to dismiss being asserted as an affirmative defense pursuant to Rule 16, Section 6. The compulsory counterclaim is deemed waived when defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint instead of answering the same. (Financial Building Corp. vs. Forbes Park Association, Inc. , G.R. No. 133119, August. 17, 2000)
[3] If the counterclaim is based on an actionable document attached to or copied in the counterclaim, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party specifically denies under oath its genuineness and due execution. (Rule 8, Section 8)
