G.R. No. L-20112; May 25, 1966
ROBERTO TOMADO, plaintiff and appellant, vs. JOAQUIN BILBAO, defendant and appellee.

FACTS

On November 16, 1959, Joaquin Bilbao, as administrator of Hacienda Paz, filed a complaint for ejectment against Roberto Tomado in the Justice of the Peace Court of Hinobaan, Negros Occidental, alleging Tomado occupied a portion of the hacienda and built a house without consent. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of Bilbao. On appeal to the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 5772), the court dismissed the ejectment action upon Tomado’s motion on the ground that Bilbao, being merely an administrator, had no legal capacity to sue. Subsequently, Tomado filed a new complaint in the Court of First Instance (Civil Case No. 5953) against Bilbao to recover actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees, for the alleged unwarranted and malicious filing of the ejectment case. Bilbao filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on the grounds that the cause of action was barred and that the complaint stated no cause of action. The trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the cause of action for damages arising from the allegedly malicious filing of the prior ejectment case is barred for failure to assert it as a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier appealed ejectment case (Civil Case No. 5772).

RULING

Yes, the cause of action is barred. The damages Tomado sought to recover from Bilbao arose out of and were necessarily connected with the ejectment action that was the subject matter of Civil Case No. 5772. Therefore, under Rule 9, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, these damages should have been interposed as a compulsory counterclaim in that prior case. The failure to do so bars a separate action for their recovery. The order of dismissal is affirmed.