G.R. Nos. L-63194-96, January 21, 1985
Editha T. Dalman, petitioner, vs. The City Court of Dipolog City, Br. II and Vicenta L. Amatong, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a dispute between two public school teachers, petitioner Editha T. Dalman and private respondent Vicenta L. Amatong. Amatong filed a civil case for damages against Dalman based on alleged slight physical injuries. Dalman filed a counterclaim for damages within that civil case. Concurrently, Amatong instituted two separate criminal cases against Dalman: one for slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. B-21590) and another for grave oral defamation (Criminal Case No. B-21601).
Subsequently, Amatong moved to withdraw the civil case, citing a lack of prior barangay conciliation as required by P.D. No. 1508. She requested that her claim for civil damages instead be litigated within the two pending criminal cases. Dalman objected to the motion, arguing her counterclaim would be prejudiced, but she did not dispute the factual averment regarding non-compliance with the barangay referral requirement. The lower court granted the withdrawal of the civil case for lack of jurisdiction and allowed the pursuit of civil liability in the criminal cases.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the petitioner’s counterclaim in the dismissed civil case can subsist independently; and (2) whether the petitioner can successfully seek the dismissal of one criminal case for lack of jurisdiction at the appellate stage.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. On the first issue, the Court held that the dismissal of the main civil case necessarily carried with it the dismissal of the counterclaim interposed therein. A counterclaim is merely ancillary to the principal action; it derives its jurisdictional support from the main case. Consequently, when the civil case was properly dismissed due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation procedure under P.D. No. 1508, the entire proceeding, including the counterclaim, was terminated. The petitioner cannot seek to affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint while simultaneously insisting on the survival of her own counterclaim—a legally untenable position akin to having one’s cake and eating it too.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the question of jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. B-21590 could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The petitioner failed to challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction at the appropriate procedural stage in the lower court. Jurisdictional objections must be timely presented; they cannot be belatedly interposed at the appellate level. Therefore, the petition to dismiss the criminal case was procedurally infirm. The Court affirmed the lower court’s orders, lifted the temporary restraining order, and imposed costs against the petitioner.