Alday VS. FGU Insurance
FGU filed a complaint for sum of money against Alday amounting to
P114k. Alday filed her Answer by way of counterclaim and asserted that it is
FGU who owes them P104k and for premium reserves of P500k. She also prayed for
attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, moral damages and exemplary damages for
the allegedly unfounded actions filed by FGU. FGU then moved to strike out
Alday’s answer and to declare her in default for filing the answer out of time.
The motion was denied. FGU again moved to dismiss Alday’s counterclaim by
contending that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the same
because of non-payment of docket fees. Alday also in response, asked the RTC to
declare her counterclaim as exempt from payment of docket fees since it is
compulsory and that FGU be declared in default for failing to answer such
counterclaim.
RTC dismissed Alday’s counterclaim it being merely permissive and
that failure to pay the docket fees prevented the court from acquiring
jurisdiction over the same. CA sustained the RTC.
Issue: WON counterclaim of petitioner exempt from the payment of
docket fees and therefore the court acquired jurisdiction over the same
Held:
NO. The counterclaim being permissive, in order for
the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the same, petitioner is bound to
pay the prescribed docket fees. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or
appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee
that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of
the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by
payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a
reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims,
third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed
until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may
allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond
its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.
Meanwhile, the compulsory counterclaim of petitioner for damages based
on the filing by respondent of an allegedly unfounded and malicious suit need
not be answered since it is inseparable from the claims of respondent. If
respondent were to answer the compulsory counterclaim of petitioner, it would
merely result in the former pleading the same facts raised in its complaint.
No comments:
Post a Comment