G.R. No. L-19548 December 22, 1966
NICEFORO S. AGATON, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. PATRICIO PEREZ, CARLOS S. MARTINEZ, and FELIZA B. MARTINEZ, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On June 15, 1960, respondents Feliza B. Martinez and Carlos S. Martinez leased the second floor of their house in Baguio City to petitioner Niceforo S. Agaton until June 15, 1961, at a monthly rental of P100. On May 8, 1961, respondents filed a complaint in the municipal court of Baguio to collect unpaid rents from December 18, 1960, the value of certain city services they had to pay, another indebtedness of P200, and attorney’s fees. Petitioner filed a written answer containing denials and two sections labeled “first special affirmative defense and/or counterclaim” and “second special affirmative defense and/or counterclaim.” The first alleged respondents misled him about transportation availability. The second alleged respondent Feliza Martinez maliciously inquired about his salary with his employer to embarrass him. The first counterclaim sought compensatory damages for taxi fare; the second sought moral damages. At the hearing, upon receiving the answer, respondents verbally answered the counterclaims by stating they “are denying specially each and every allegation of all the counterclaims, the truth being that this claim was filed in good faith.” Petitioner then moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding his counterclaim, arguing respondents’ verbal answer was a mere general denial that tendered no triable issue. The municipal court denied the motion and a reconsideration. Petitioner filed a certiorari petition with the Court of First Instance of Baguio, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CFI dismissed the petition, ruling no grave abuse occurred.

ISSUE

Whether the municipal court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on his counterclaim.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI decision, holding there was no grave abuse of discretion. First, petitioner’s answer contained unnecessary allegations of evidentiary matters in the counterclaims, making a specific denial of each impractical, especially since the old Rules did not require a written answer to a counterclaim in municipal court. Second, the allegations in the affirmative defenses and counterclaims were inseparable and lumped together, so under the rules regarding new matters in an answer, they could be deemed controverted even without a specific reply. Finally, the core allegations of misrepresentation and malice in the counterclaims were specifically traversed by respondents’ verbal allegation of good faith. The municipal court acted correctly and with proper judicial circumspection in denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings.