G.R. No. 133284 May 9, 2000
SPS. CLARO PONCIANO and GLORIA PONCIANO, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE J. PARENTELA, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City, Br. 23 and SPS. ILDEFONSO CLAMOSA and LEONORA CLAMOSA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the Clamosas, filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioners, the Poncianos, for unpaid labor and materials in a house renovation. The Poncianos filed an Answer with a compulsory counterclaim, alleging defective work and abandonment by the Clamosas, and claiming damages. The trial court, upon the Clamosas’ motion, ordered the counterclaim stricken from the record for failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping as required by Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The Supreme Court, in a prior certiorari petition (G.R. No. 127701), initially sustained this dismissal, ruling that the circular applied to all counterclaims without distinction.
Subsequently, the Poncianos filed an “Answer with Amended Compulsory Counterclaim,” this time including the required certification. The trial court initially admitted it but later, upon reconsideration, expunged the amended counterclaim. The court reasoned that allowing the amendment after the Supreme Court had affirmed the dismissal of the original counterclaim would be contemptuous. The Poncianos then filed the present certiorari petition, arguing the dismissal was not with prejudice and they should be allowed to refile their compulsory counterclaim with proper certification.

ISSUE

Whether a compulsory counterclaim in an answer requires a certificate of non-forum shopping under Administrative Circular No. 04-94, and whether the dismissal of such a counterclaim for lack of the certificate bars its re-filing.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the trial court’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a compulsory counterclaim and the purpose of the anti-forum shopping rule. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the main complaint and must be pleaded in the answer or be barred forever. It is auxiliary to and derives its jurisdictional support from the pending main action; it is not an independent initiatory pleading.
Administrative Circular No. 04-94, designed to prevent forum-shopping, applies to “initiatory pleadings” that commence an action or claim for relief. Following the precedent in Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla, the Court held that a compulsory counterclaim, being inherently non-initiatory and incapable of being filed as an independent suit, is not covered by the circular’s certification requirement. The rule that a violation is not curable by amendment pertains only to initiatory pleadings. Therefore, the trial court erred in striking the original and amended compulsory counterclaims. The Poncianos’ counterclaim, being compulsory, did not require the certification, and its dismissal did not constitute a bar to its re-assertion in the answer. The trial court was ordered to admit the answer with the compulsory counterclaim.