Mercado VS. CA
Facts: Mercado had been distributing respondent San
Miguel Corporation’s (SMC’s) beer products in Manila. SMC extended to
him a P7.5 million credit line allowing him to withdraw goods on credit. Mercado failed to pay
for the items. Citing the continuing hold-out agreement (which allows SMC to
encash China Banking Corporation (CBC) certificates of deposit assigned by
Mercado), it asked CBC to release the proceeds of the assigned certificates of
deposit. Mercado filed an action to annul the continuing hold-out agreement and
deed of assignment in the RTC.
SMC filed its answer with counterclaim against
Mercado. SMC sought payment of the lees products he withdrew (or purchased on
credit) worth P7.5 million
During trial, Mercado acknowledged the accuracy of SMC’s computation of
his outstanding liability. Thus, the RTC dismissed the complaint and ordered
Mercado and Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation (EASCO) (to the extent of
P2.6 million or the value of its bonds) to jointly and severally pay SMC the
amount of P7.5m. CA affirmed the RTC.
Mercado passed away and was substituted by his heirs who filed the
petition asserting that the CA erred in affirming the RTC. The said decision (insofar
as it ordered Mercado to pay SMC P7,468,153.75) was void. SMC’s counterclaim
was permissive in nature. Inasmuch as SMC did not pay docket fees, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the counterclaim.
Issue: WON SMC’s counterclaim was permissive in
nature, whereby payment of docket fees is necessary for the RTC to
acquire jurisdiction.
Held: No. A counterclaim (or a claim which a
defending party may have against any party) may be compulsory or
permissive. A counterclaim that (1) arises out of (or is necessarily connected
with) the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s
claim; (2) falls within the jurisdiction of the court and (3) does not require
for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction, is compulsory. Otherwise, a counterclaim is merely
permissive.
Aside from invoking the validity of the said agreements, SMC therefore
sought to collect the payment for the value of goods Mercado purchased on
credit. Thus, Mercado’s complaint and SMC’s counterclaim both touched the
issues of whether the continuing hold-out agreement and deed of assignment were
valid and whether Mercado had outstanding liabilities to SMC. The same evidence
would essentially support or refute Mercado’s claim and SMC’s counterclaim.
Based on the foregoing, had these issues been tried separately, the
efforts of the RTC and the parties would have had to be duplicated. Clearly,
SMC’s counterclaim, being logically related to Mercado’s claim, was compulsory
in nature. Consequently, the payment of docket fees was not necessary for the
RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment