G.R. No. 160354. August 25, 2005.
BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. GABRIEL G. LOCSIN and MA. GERALDINE R. LOCSIN, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent spouses Locsin obtained several loans from petitioner Banco de Oro Universal Bank. A first Term Loan Agreement (TLA) for ₱700,000 was secured by a mortgage on their property (TCT No. N-138739). A second TLA for ₱800,000, secured by another property (TCT No. 67286), was settled, and its mortgage was cancelled. Later, a Credit Line Agreement (CLA) for ₱2.5 million was secured by a mortgage on properties owned by their business partners, the spouses Evidente. The Locsins defaulted on the CLA.
Petitioner bank applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the Evidente properties and, erroneously, the already-released Locsin property (TCT No. 67286). After a nullified auction, petitioner filed an amended application to foreclose the Evidente properties and the Locsin property securing the first TLA (TCT No. N-138739). The Locsins then filed a complaint for Specific Performance, Tort, and Damages with a prayer for injunction, alleging the bank acted in bad faith by unjustly re-valuing the Evidente properties lower than agreed and by wrongfully including their first-TLA property as additional collateral for the CLA deficiency.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) correctly denied the Locsins’ Motion to Dismiss, which was based on petitioner bank’s failure to set up a compulsory counterclaim for sum of money in its Answer.

RULING

Yes, the RTC was correct. The Court held that the bank’s claim for a sum of money was not a compulsory counterclaim that was required to be set up in its Answer. A compulsory counterclaim arises from the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties. The core of the Locsins’ complaint was to enjoin the foreclosure and to claim damages due to the bank’s alleged fraudulent and oppressive acts regarding loan valuations and collateral. In contrast, the bank’s claim for payment of the loan obligations, while related, constitutes a separate cause of action for collection of a sum of money. This collection claim is logically independent and can stand alone; its resolution is not contingent upon the outcome of the Locsins’ suit for injunction and damages. Therefore, it is permissive, not compulsory. A permissive counterclaim, which does not arise from the same transaction, can be pursued in a separate action. Consequently, the bank’s omission of this claim in its Answer was not a ground for dismissal of the Locsins’ complaint. The Court of Appeals’ decision annulling the RTC orders was reversed, and the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss was reinstated.