G.R. No. 4031
ARCADIO REMIGIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FAUSTO RIGATA, defendant-appellee.
September 22, 1908

FACTS:
Arcadio Remigio (plaintiff-appellant) sued Fausto Rigata (defendant-appellee) before a Justice of the Peace (JP) for P75. Remigio alleged he had furnished Rigata P75 to buy wood, which Rigata was to deliver to Remigio for sale, with profits to be equally divided. The JP rendered judgment for Remigio for P75. Rigata appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI).

In the CFI, Remigio reproduced his original demand. Rigata admitted receiving the P75 but testified that he had invested the money in wood and had delivered it to Remigio. The CFI found that the wood had indeed been delivered to Remigio, thus disposing of Remigio’s original claim.

Rigata also presented an answer and counterclaim in the CFI, seeking an accounting and judgment for amounts due from Remigio. It was unclear if this counterclaim was within the JP’s original jurisdiction. Remigio moved to dismiss this counterclaim, which the CFI granted, but reserved Rigata’s right to maintain a separate action upon the matters presented in his counterclaim.

Remigio then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CFI should have “quitted” (acquitted) him of the counterclaim instead of merely dismissing it, and that the CFI should not have reserved Rigata’s right to file a separate action on the counterclaim.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in dismissing the counterclaim instead of “quitting” the plaintiff from it.
2. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in reserving the defendant’s right to maintain a separate action on the matters raised in the dismissed counterclaim.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

1. On the dismissal vs. “quitting” of the counterclaim: The Court held that the plaintiff-appellant (Remigio) could not complain about the dismissal of the counterclaim because he himself moved for its dismissal. Having requested and obtained the dismissal, he cannot now assign it as an error.
2. On the reservation of the right to sue: The Court ruled that the reservation made by the CFI, allowing the defendant to maintain another action on the dismissed counterclaim, produced no effect. The Court explained that if the law grants a party the right to maintain another action when a counterclaim is dismissed, that right exists whether or not the first judgment contains such a reservation. Conversely, if the law does not grant such a right, a court cannot confer it by attempting to reserve it.
3. On the plaintiff’s original claim: The Court affirmed the CFI’s finding of fact that the wood had been delivered by Rigata to Remigio, thereby upholding the dismissal of Remigio’s initial P75 claim.