On October 16, 2012, an article entitled “Like father like son?” was published in the Opinion Section of The Philippine Star. This was authored by petitioner which accused respondent as a liar, fraud, criminal, and car smuggler. Respondent filed a case for libel against petitioner. The latter filed a counterclaim citing her freedom of expression as well as being singled out for harassment as the publisher, editor, and newspaper were not impleaded in the case.
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss with the RTC which argued that petitioner’s counterclaims were actually permissive in nature and that her failure to comply with requirements of an initiatory pleading specifically the payment of docket fees and certification against forum shopping will lead to the dismissal of her counterclaims. Petitioner opposed saying that her counterclaims were compulsory in nature.
The Regional Trial Court gave petitioner 15 days from receipt of its order to pay the appropriate docket fees or such counterclaims will be dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC which dismissed the motion for reconsideration of the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s counterclaims are compulsory or permissive in nature
Ruling:
The petition was granted. The Court found the counterclaims as compulsory, that they should be resolved along with the civil complaint filed by respondent without the necessity of complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings.
A compulsory counterclaim is any claim of money or any 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 the plaintiff’s complaint. Any other counterclaim which is not compulsory is permissive.
In addition, a counterclaim is compulsory if it has a positive answer to all of the following questions:
1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claims and counterclaims largely the same?
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claim, absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as defendant’s counterclaim?
4. Is there any logical relation between the claim and counterclaim?
The determination of the nature of the counterclaim is relevant for purposes of compliance to the requirements of initiatory pleadings. For the court to acquire jurisdiction, permissive counterclaims require payment of docket fees while compulsory counterclaims do not.
The complaint filed by respondent for damages arose from alleged malicious publications written by petitioner for the latter’s malice or libelous statements. Meanwhile, petitioner’s counterclaim presupposes bad faith or malice on the part of respondent in instituting complaint for damages.
According to jurisprudence, the theory of malicious prosecution is associated with unfounded criminal actions and baseless civil suits intended to vex and humiliate defendant despite absence of a case of action or probable cause.
