2004 Bar: Should AC‘s motion to dismiss the counterclaim be granted or not? (5%)

2004 Bar: PX filed a suit for damages against DY. In his answer, DY incorporated a counterclaim for damages against PX and AC, counsel for plaintiff in said suit, alleging in said counterclaim, inter alia, that AC, as such counsel, maliciously included PX to bring the suits against DY despite AC‘s knowledge of its utter lack of factual and legal basis. In due time, AC filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim as against him on the ground that he is not a proper party to the case, he being merely plaintiff‘s counsel. Is the counterclaim of DY compulsory or not? Should AC‘s motion to dismiss the counterclaim be granted or not? Reason. (5%)
Yes, the counterclaim of DY is compulsory because it is one which 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 whom the court acquire jurisdiction (Sec. 7, Rule 6).

No, the motion to dismiss of plaintiff‘s counsel should not be granted because impleading plaintiff‘s counsel as a defendant in the counterclaim is authorized by the Rules. Where it is required for the grant of complete relief in the determination of the counterclaim, the court shall order the defendant‘s counsel to be brought in since jurisdiction over him can be obtained (Sec. 12, Rule 6). Here, the counterclaim was against both the plaintiff and his attorney who allegedly maliciously induced the plaintiff to file the suit (Aurello v. Court of Appeals). ADVERTISEMENT: Work from home! Be an online English tutor. Earn at least PHP100/hour.