G.R. No. 155173 , November 23, 2004
LAFARGE CEMENT PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION, GREGORY T. LIM and ANTHONY A. MARIANO, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Continental Cement Corporation (CCC) filed a complaint for specific performance against petitioners Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc., et al., to compel them to pay a retained amount from a sale and purchase agreement to the Asset Privatization Trust. Petitioners filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims ad Cautelam. Their counterclaims sought damages not only against CCC but also against its president, Gregory T. Lim, and corporate secretary, Anthony A. Mariano, who were not originally named as plaintiffs in CCC’s complaint. Petitioners alleged that CCC, through Lim and Mariano, filed the baseless complaint and procured a writ of attachment in bad faith.
CCC, purportedly on behalf of Lim and Mariano who had not yet filed any responsive pleading, moved to dismiss the counterclaims against the two individuals. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaims insofar as they impleaded Lim and Mariano, ruling that the counterclaims against them were not compulsory and that the joinder was improper.

ISSUE

May defendants in a civil case implead in their compulsory counterclaims persons who were not parties to the original complaint?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the counterclaims against Lim and Mariano. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a compulsory counterclaim and the rules on permissive joinder of parties. A compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. Petitioners’ claim for damages, arising from the alleged bad faith in filing the suit and procuring the attachment, is logically connected to CCC’s main action for specific performance, making it compulsory.
Rule 6, Section 12 of the Rules of Court allows a party to assert a counterclaim against an opposing party, and the term “opposing party” is not restricted to those formally named as plaintiffs in the complaint. It includes those who are “acting in concert” with them in the prosecution of the suit, such as corporate officers actively instigating the litigation. Since Lim and Mariano, as CCC’s officers, were alleged to have actively participated in the filing of the allegedly baseless suit, they could be considered “opposing parties” for purposes of a compulsory counterclaim. The rule on permissive joinder of parties (Rule 3, Section 6) allows the joining of multiple defendants in one complaint if the right to relief arises from the same transaction and involves common questions of law or fact. This principle applies analogously to counterclaims. Joining Lim and Mariano promotes the efficient resolution of the entire controversy in a single proceeding and avoids multiplicity of suits. The trial court’s dismissal was premature; the propriety of holding Lim and Mariano solidarily liable with CCC is a matter of evidence to be threshed out during trial.