of all the averments of the complaint instead of dealing particularly with each
Such general denial will be deemed admission of the averments in the complaint
- To be considered specific, see Sec. 10, Rule 8 Sec. 5(b) defines and illustrates an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
- It is an allegation of a new matter which, hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him
- The enumeration is not exclusive; some affirmative defenses which should be specifically pleaded include: 1. Res judicata
2. Ultra vires acts of a corporation 3. Laches
4. Unconstitutionality
- Note also that if no motion to dismiss had been filed, any of the grounds therefor may be raised as an affirmative defense in the answer (Sec. 6, Rule 16)
Insufficient denial or denial amounting to admissions: 1. General denial; and
2. Denial in the form of a negative pregnant
Negative Pregnant – is a denial in such form as to imply or express an admission of the substantial fact, which apparently is controverted. It is a form of denial which really admits the important facts contained in the allegations to which it relates.
While it is a denial in the form its substance actually has the effect of an admission because of a too literal denial of the allegation sough to be denied. This arises when the pleader merely repeats the allegations in a negative form.
Notes:
- The rules made it clear that the admission to be drawn from an affirmative allegation is merely “hypothetical” - Justice Feria: an affirmative defense does not require that
the defending party admit, expressly or impliedly, the material allegations of the complaint
a. It is an allegation of new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would prevent or bar recovery
- Note also that a collateral attack on Torrens Title as affirmative defense is not allowed
a. Vda. De Villanueva v. CA – the issue of invalidity of the titles as a defense in an answer/counterclaim to respondents’ action for recovery of ownership partakes of the nature of a collateral attack and is an indirect challenge to the final judgment and decrees of registration which resulted in the issuance of titles b. Sec. 48, PD 1529 (Property Registration Act) requires
no less than a direct action for reconveyance duly filed within the period provided for by law
SECTION 6 - Counterclaim.—A counterclaim is any claim which a
defending party may have against an opposing party. Nature of Counterclaim
- It partakes of the nature of a complaint or a cause of action against a plaintiff
a. A cross-claimant or a counterclaimant is a plaintiff on the cross-claim or counterclaim
- Where defendant who is a counter-claimant and therefore a plaintiff in his counterclaim dies, a simple motion for substitution is permissible under Rule 3
Direct Attack and Collateral Attack Distinguished 1. Direct attack
a. A direct attack against a judgment is made to an action or proceeding
b. Main object of which is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment
c. If not yet carried into effect or if property has been disposed of, aggrieved party may sue for recovery 2. Collateral attack
a. It is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an incident to such action
b. This is proper only when:
(1) The judgment, on its face, is null and void; or (2) Where it is patent that the court which rendered
said judgment has no jurisdiction
While a counterclaim may be filed with a subject matter or for a relief different from those in the basic complaint in the case, it does not follow that such counterclaim is in the nature of a separate and independent action in itself (Co v. CA)
- Its allowance in the action is subject to explicit conditions as set forth particularly in its required relation to the subject matter of the opposing parties’ claim
- Failing in that respect, it cannot be entertained as a counterclaim in the original
a. It must be filed and pursued as an altogether different and original action
That being said, may a counterclaim be allowed to nullify a Torrens Title?
1. First school of thought: NOT ALLOWED
a. Where the objective of the claim is to nullify the title to the property in question, which thereby challenges the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed, this is apparently a collateral attack which is not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens Title
b. In Co v. CA, the Court held that the issue of validity of title can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose and not by counterclaim c. Said principle was reiterated in Vda. De Villanueva v.
CA
2. Second school of thought: COUNTERCLAIM ALLOWED AS DIRECT ATTACK
a. Lenas v. IAC – reconveyance of title was granted in a counterclaim in an action to recover possession b. Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago – the court
held that a counterclaim can be considered a direct attack in the title
c. DBP v. CA – it was held that a counterclaim is
considered a complaint, only this time, it is the original defendant who becomes the plaintiff d. Leyson v. Bantuyan – court held that an attack on a
certificate of title may be an original action or a counter-claim in which a certificate of title is assailed as void; a counterclaim is considered a new suit Counterclaim, Set-off, and Recoupment
1. Counterclaim or Contrarreclamacion
a. Includes both set-off and recoupment and is broader than both
61
b. It includes equitable demands and secures to the defendant full relief which is a separate action at law and would have secured him on the state of facts c. Being substantially a cross-action by defendant
against plaintiff 2. Set-off or Compensacion
a. A money demand by defendant against plaintiff arising upon contract and constituting a debt independent of and unconnected with the cause of action in the complaint
b. May be used to offset a plaintiff’s claim but not to recover affirmatively
3. Recoupment or Reconvencion
a. It differs from a counterclaim in this wise:
(1) Under a counterclaim, defendant may have an affirmative judgment where he is able to prove a demand in excess of the plaintiff’s demand (2) In recoupment, whatever the damages proved by
defendant, they can go only to reduce or extinguish the claim against him
b. Recoupment must arise out of the contract or transaction upon which the plaintiff’s claim is founded
For Set-off or Recoupment to be considered as counterclaim, the following requisites must concur (Lopez v. Gloria and Sheriff of
Leyte):
1. The same be essentially a genuine action of the defendant against the plaintiff
Under this requisite, independent of any other consideration, a genuine action is constituted by defendant which could be employed separately against plaintiff
2. The same should have as its object, to neutralize, wholly or partially, that which the plaintiff is trying to obtain Under this requisite, that the defendant admits the
facts upon which the action of plaintiff is based This requisite is absent if defendant bases his claim
on facts which directly destroy the action or cause of action of plaintiff; in this case, the claim of defendant would only be a special defense
3. The same does not have for its object to destroy directly the action of the plaintiff; and
Under this requisite, set-off or recoupment may be merely a defense and not a counterclaim if it only tends to oppose or to destroy the action of plaintiff 4. The same ought not to pray for a positive remedy distinct
from payment of money
Same Capacity Rule – A counterclaim must be filed against an opposing party in the same capacity he is suing (De Borja v. De
Borja)
Note that a counterclaim against counsel is not allowed (Chavez v.
Sandiganbayan)
- A lawyer who acts in the name of a client should not be sued on a counterclaim in the very same case he has filed only as a counsel and not as a party
- Any claim for alleged damages or other causes of action should be filed in an entirely separate and distinct civil action
- A lawyer cannot properly attend to his duties towards his client if, in the same case, he is kept busy defending himself
SECTION 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 whom 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 an original action before the Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount.
Purpose – the reason for the rule on counterclaims is to avoid multiplicity of suits and to dispose of the whole matter in controversy in one action
Classification of Counterclaims 1. Permissive Counterclaim
a. Essentially an independent claim that may be filed separately in another case
2. Compulsory Counterclaim
a. When its object 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 cannot acquire jurisdiction b. Unlike permissive counterclaims, compulsory counterclaims should be set up in the same action, otherwise they would be barred forever
c. If a compulsory counterclaim is:
(1) Filed concurrently with the main action but in a different proceeding, it would be abated on the ground of litis pendentia
(2) Filed subsequently, abated on the ground of res judicata
COMPULSORY
COUNTERCLAIM COUNTERCLAIM PERMISSIVE One which arises out of or is
necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
opposing party’s claim
It does not arise out of nor is it necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing
party’s claim It does not require for its
adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction
It may require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction It is barred if not set up in the
action It is not barred even if not set up in the action Need not be answered; no
default
Must be answered, otherwise, the defendant can be declared
in default
Note: A plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be declared in default, principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically joined by the allegations of the complaint. (Gojo v. Goyala)
PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIMS Permissive Counterclaim
- Counterclaim is permissive if it does not arise out of, nor is necessarily connected with, the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim
- This is not barred even if not set up in the action
- Must have independent jurisdictional ground (see notes on fourth element of compulsory counterclaims)
62
Cases where Counterclaims were Held as Permissive
1. In an action for money, defendant’s counterclaim for damages sustained because of supposed illegal detention by plaintiff is merely permissive (Yap Unki v. Chua Jamco) 2. The civil case in the Pasig Court, which is in effect a
counterclaim to the Manila case, was ordered transferred and consolidated with the Manila case (Delta v.
Mangosing)
COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS Requisites of Compulsory Counterclaim:
1. It must be cognizable by regular courts
If a claim is cognizable by other quasi-judicial bodies (like the NLRC or the SEC) then it cannot be compulsory
2. It arises out of or is necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s or co-party’s claim
3. Does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction 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
4. The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim 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
See separate discussion below
GENERAL RULE: A compulsory counterclaim not set up in the answer is deemed barred
EXCEPTIONS:
1. If it is a counterclaim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his answer
In this case, it may be pleaded by filing a supplemental answer or pleading before judgment (Sec. 9, Rule 11)
2. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim through oversight inadvertence, excusable negligence, or when justice requires
He may, by leave of court, set-up the counterclaim by amendment of the pleading (Sec. 10, Rule 11) A compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the original suit
- It is auxiliary to the proceeding in the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support therefrom
- It presupposes the existence of a claim against the party filing the counterclaim
- Where there is no claim against a counterclaimant, the counterclaim is improper and it must be dismissed; more so where complaint is dismissed at the instance of the counterclaimant
As to the Fourth Element
- According to Justice Moran, a compulsory counterclaim is essentially auxiliary or ancillary to the main controversy - Being ancillary, it needs no independent jurisdictional
grounds to support it, and as a consequence, no jurisdictional amount is required for its adjudication - If the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the
main action of the case and dismissed the same, then the compulsory counterclaim, being ancillary, must likewise be dismissed
UNLESS: it had independent jurisdictional grounds to support it
Under Sec. 2 and 3 of Rule 17, where the complaint is dismissed upon the motion of the plaintiff or due to the fault of the plaintiff, the defendant may prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action - Note however the language of the present rule:
1. The counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof
2. EXCEPT that in an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount (note this is only with regard to the AMOUNT and not as to NATURE, see notes below)
- As such, a compulsory counterclaim in the RTC needs no independent jurisdictional grounds
- However, permissive counterclaims must have independent jurisdictional ground
In the MTC, a counterclaim beyond the court’s jurisdiction may only be pleaded by way of defense; if found to be meritorious, complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has bigger credit (Calo v. Ajax)
In Yu Lay v. Galmes, it has been held that the failure of the defendant to set up, by way of counterclaim, the credit for a sum greater than that of the justice of the peace’s jurisdiction does not mean that he thereby loses his right to set it up before a competent court
The rule that a compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up, when applied to MTCs presupposes that the amount involved is within said court’s jurisdiction Limitations on Jurisdiction over the Nature of the Claim
- While there is no limit on the amount of the claim as far as the RTC is concerned, the RTC must, however, have jurisdiction over the nature of the claim
- Regardless if it is the RTC or MTC, the court must have jurisdiction over the nature of the claim
- Illustrative cases:
1. Vda. De Chua v. IAC – it was held that the rules on jurisdiction in an independent action applies to counterclaims; a counterclaim for recovery of possession may be allowed in the RTC but not a counterclaim for ejectment
2. Chan v. CA – it was held that a counterclaim for ejectment may be set up in a consignation case filed with the MTC but not with the RTC
3. Zulueta v. Pan Am – lack of jurisdiction over the main case was cured by the compulsory counterclaim based upon damages already suffered by defendant in consequence of the filing of the complaint
4. Where the MTC has no jurisdiction in ejectment, it has also no jurisdiction to entertain counterclaim