G.R. No. 101747 September 24, 1997
Perfecta Quintanilla, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Perfecta Quintanilla executed a Real Estate Mortgage on July 12, 1983, in favor of respondent Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) to secure a credit line of P45,000.00. She availed P25,000.00 from this line on October 23, 1984, evidenced by a promissory note. On the same date and on November 8, 1984, she secured two separate P100,000.00 loans against her advance export credit line with RCBC. On November 20, 1984, RCBC received the proceeds of her export shipment (P208,630.00) and debited P125,000.00 from her account to pay the P100,000.00 and P25,000.00 loans. However, the issuing bank later refused payment on the export bill and demanded reimbursement. RCBC reimbursed the foreign bank and reverted the debit entries, demanding payment from Quintanilla for the loans, including the P25,000.00 secured by the mortgage. RCBC sought to foreclose the mortgage not only for P25,000.00 but also for subsequent credit accommodations totaling P500,994.39, alleging they were covered by the mortgage. Quintanilla filed an action for specific performance, arguing the mortgage secured only up to P45,000.00 and she had paid her other loans. RCBC filed an answer with a counterclaim for her outstanding loans. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled foreclosure was limited to the P25,000.00 obligation. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this but granted RCBC’s counterclaim for the other loans. Quintanilla moved for partial reconsideration, arguing for the first time that RCBC’s counterclaim was permissive and the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees. The CA denied the motion but ordered RCBC to pay docket fees on the counterclaim.

ISSUE

Whether respondent RCBC’s counterclaim is compulsory or permissive in nature.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that RCBC’s counterclaim is compulsory in nature. The mortgage contract contained a provision stating it secured loans obtained and “those that the Mortgagee may extend to the Mortgagor,” indicating an intent to secure future indebtedness beyond the fixed amount of P45,000.00. Therefore, the mortgage covered petitioner’s other credit accommodations. Consequently, the counterclaim for these advances arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of petitioner’s claim to enjoin foreclosure, satisfying the test of compulsoriness. A compulsory counterclaim requires no separate docket fee. Nevertheless, RCBC remained bound to pay the docket fees as ordered by the CA, having failed to appeal that order. Furthermore, petitioner was barred by estoppel and laches from challenging jurisdiction, as she actively participated in the proceedings and raised the issue only at a very late stage. The CA decision was affirmed with the modification regarding the nature of the counterclaim.