GR 139018; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139018 ; April 11, 2005
ESTHERLITA CRUZ-AGANA, Petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE AURORA SANTIAGO-LAGMAN and B. SERRANO ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Estherlita Cruz-Agana filed a complaint for annulment of title against respondent B. Serrano Enterprises, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. Respondent, in its Answer, included a compulsory counterclaim. Petitioner moved to dismiss this counterclaim due to respondent’s failure to attach a certificate of non-forum shopping as required by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
The RTC initially denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that a compulsory counterclaim was excluded from the circular’s coverage. Upon petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the court reversed itself and dismissed the counterclaim. Respondent then filed its own motion for reconsideration, citing the ruling in Santo Tomas University Hospital v. Surla. The trial court, persuaded by this precedent, reversed its dismissal order and reinstated the counterclaim, prompting the petitioner to file the instant petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the respondent’s compulsory counterclaim for lack of a certificate of non-forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the trial court’s order. The Court held that Administrative Circular No. 04-94 does not apply to compulsory counterclaims. The legal logic is anchored on the nature and purpose of the circular and the distinction between compulsory and permissive counterclaims.
The circular is intended to cover initiatory pleadings where a party affirmatively asserts a claim for relief, such as a complaint or a petition. A compulsory counterclaim, by definition, is auxiliary to the main proceeding; it arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim. It is not an independent, initiatory pleading but a mandatory response that must be raised in the answer or be deemed waived. To require a separate certificate of non-forum shopping for such a reactive pleading is inconsistent with its dependent character. The Court, in Santo Tomas, explicitly clarified that the circular was not contemplated to include claims which derive their jurisdictional support from the main case and cannot be independently set up. Therefore, the trial court correctly applied settled jurisprudence and did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the compulsory counterclaim.