THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 133284. May 9, 2000]
SPS. CLARO
PONCIANO and GLORIA PONCIANO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JOSE J.
PARENTELA, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City,
Br. 23 and SPS. ILDEFONSO CLAMOSA and LEONORA CLAMOSA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
The instant case deals with Administrative
Circular 04-94. More specifically, the primary issue is whether or not an
answer which asserts a compulsory counterclaim must include a certificate of
non-forum shopping, and if so, whether or not the dismissal of such compulsory
counterclaim by the trial court due to the absence of such certification has
the effect of a dismissal with prejudice so as to bar the party from re-filing
such compulsory counterclaim.
The antecedents of this case are as follows:
On June 13, 1995, private respondents
Ildefonso and Leonora Clamosa filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages
with the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City, Branch 23, against
petitioners Claro and Gloria Ponciano for unpaid cost of labor and materials
incurred by them in repairing petitioner’s house in San Roque, Cavite. The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. TM-601. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, but the same was denied
by the trial court in its Order dated September 21, 1995. Â h Y
On October 18, 1995, petitioners filed their
answer with compulsory counterclaim, claiming that they have paid the total
contract price agreed upon; that despite this, the work of private respondents
was defective; and that private respondents abandoned the renovation before it
was completed. Petitioners asserted that they are entitled to be paid P250,000
to complete the renovation, and damages.
On August 23, 1996, upon motion of private
respondents, the trial court ordered that petitioners counterclaim be stricken
off from 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 all courts. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration dated September
17, 1996, arguing, among others, that since their counterclaim is compulsory in
nature, it is not an initiatory pleading and therefore, does not fall within
the scope of Administrative Circular No. 04-94. However, on October 17, 1996,
the trial court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.[1]
Petitioners questioned the trial court’s
orders before this Court by means of a special civil action for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which case was
docketed as G.R. No. 127701. On February 10, 1997, the Court’s Second Division
denied the petition for lack of merit, holding that-
xxx
xxx xxx
We find there is
no reversible error in the trial court’s questioned order. The administrative
circular invoked provides clearly that strict compliance with its mandate is
imposed upon all initiatory pleadings, and that "the complaint and other
initiatory pleadings referred to and subject of this Circular are the original
civil complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) party
complaint, or complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application wherein a
party asserts his claim or relief." It is notable that in issuing the
said circular, the court did not distinguish between permissive and compulsory
counterclaim, and we need not make a distinction in this regard as well. (underscoring
supplied)[2]
xxx
xxx xxx
Thereafter, petitioners filed an
"Answer with Amended Compulsory Counterclaim," wherein the amendment
consisted of the addition of a certification under oath in compliance with the
Administrative Circular No. 04-94. Initially, the trial court admitted the
"Answer with Amended Compulsory Counterclaim" in its July 9, 1997
Order. However, after the filing of a motion for reconsideration by private
respondents, the court reconsidered its action and expunged the amended
compulsory counterclaim from the records.[3] Its
ruling was explained in its Order dated December 9, 1997-
After a
soul-searching evaluation of the arguments in the Motion for reconsideration
filed by plaintiffs thru counsel dated October 6, 1997 and the
Comment/Opposition thereto field by counsel for defendants dated November 5,
1997 this Court finds the raison d’entre of said Motion for Reconsideration to
be impressed with merit. Surely, it would be logomachic and fallacious and what
is worse, contemptible to admit defendants’ Amended Compulsory counterclaim
after the Honorable Supreme Court had dismissed the petition for certiorari
questioning the Order of this Court striking-off from the record defendants’
compulsory counterclaim for not complying with Administrative Circular No.
04-94. As it is, the Honorable Supreme Court is the highest court of the land
and this court like any other Regional Trial Court belongs to the lower strata
of the judicial [sic]. Jksm
ACCORDINGLY, the
Motion for reconsideration is hereby granted. Apropos, defendants’ amended
compulsory counterclaim is hereby expunged and/or stricken off from the record.
SO ORDERED.[4]
After its motion for reconsideration was
denied by the trial court in an order dated March 17, 1998, petitioners filed
the present special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing
the trial court’s orders denying admission of their amended compulsory
counterclaim. They maintain that this Court did not rule in its decision in
G.R. No. 127701 that the dismissal of petitioners’ compulsory counterclaim in
Civil Case No. TM-601 for non-compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94
was with prejudice. Consequently, petitioners assert that they should be
permitted to re-file their compulsory counterclaim provided that they comply
with such circular[5].
Administrative Circular No. 04-94[6] was
issued by this Court in order to prevent the undesirable practice of
forum-shopping, which exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari)
in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded
on the same cause, on the chance that one or the other court would make a
favorable disposition.[7] The
pertinent portion of the Circular provides-
xxx
xxx xxx
Chief
(1) The plaintiff,
petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking relief in the complaint,
petition, application or other initiatory pleading shall certify under oath in
such original pleading, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith, to the truth of the following facts and
undertakings: (a) he has not theretofore commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no
such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is any such action or
proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, he must state
the status thereof; and (d) if he should thereafter learn that a similar action
or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original
pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed. Esm
The complaint and
other initiatory pleadings referred to and subject of this Circular are the
original civil complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) party
complaint, or complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application wherein a
party asserts his claim for relief. Esmsc
xxx
xxx xxx
In resolving the issues presented in this
case, it should first be asked whether, in the first place, a compulsory
counterclaim pleaded in an answer must be accompanied with a certificate of
non-forum shopping. This very same issue was confronted in the case of Santo
Tomas University Hospital v. Surla,[8] wherein
we held that the above-quoted provisions of administrative Circular No. 04-94
do not apply to compulsory counterclaims. Speaking for the Court, Justice Vitug
explained that-
It bears
stressing, once again, that the real office of Administrative Circular No.
04-94, made effective on 01 April 1994, is to curb the malpractice commonly
referred to also as forum-shopping. It is an act of a party against whom an
adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of seeking and possibly getting
a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or the special civil
action of certiorari, or the institution of two or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other
court would make a favorable disposition. The language of the circular
distinctly suggests that it is primarily intended to cover an initiatory
pleading or an incipient application of a party asserting a claim for relief. Esmmis
It should not be
too difficult, the foregoing rationale of the circular aptly taken, to
sustain the view that the circular in question has not, in fact, 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 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. Prescinding from the foregoing, the proviso
in the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 8, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, i.e., that the violation of the anti-forum shopping rule
"shall not curable by mere amendment xxx but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice," being predicated on the
applicability of the need for a certification against forum-shopping, obviously
does not include a claim which cannot be independently set up. Esmso
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 if 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.[9]
In the case at bar, there is no doubt that
the counterclaims pleaded by petitioners in their answers are compulsory in
nature. The filing of a separate action by petitioners would only result in the
presentation of the same evidence as in Civil Case No. TM-601. Proceeding from
our ruling in Santo Tomas University Hospital, petitioners need not file
a certification of non-forum shopping since their claims are not initiatory in
character, and therefore, are not covered by the provisions of Administrative
Circular No. 04-94. Msesm
WHEREFORE, the December 9, 1997 and March 17, 1998 Orders of
Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City in Civil Case No.
TM-601 are hereby SET ASIDE. The trial court is ORDERED to ADMIT petitioners’
answer with compulsory counterclaim. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Purisima, J., abroad-no part. Exsm