Case Digest (G.R. No. 90742)
Facts:
Leonardo A. Aurelio and Yao Bun Shiong v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Ninth Division, Hon. Judge Aloysius C. Alday, Presiding Judge of Branch XCV of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Camilo L. Sabio and Ma. Marlene A. Ledonio-Sabio, G.R. No. 90742, May 06, 1991, Supreme Court First Division, Grino-Aquino, J., writing for the Court.
On September 30, 1987, sisters Ma. Esperanza Ledonio-Aurelio and Ma. Victoria A. Ledonio-Yao, together with their mother Emma Alo-Ledonio and siblings Gerardo Ledonio III, Ramon A. Ledonio and Rosario A. Ledonio, filed Civil Case No. Q-51968 in the Regional Trial Court (Branch XCV, Quezon City) against spouses Camilo D. Sabio and Ma. Marlene A. Ledonio-Sabio, and other members of the Ledonio family, seeking annulment and rescission of contract, recovery of possession, reconveyance and damages.
The Sabio spouses answered with a 66-page pleading titled "Answer with Compulsory Counter-Complaint" asserting counterclaims for P150 million for moral, nominal and exemplary damages for alleged defamatory and libelous statements in the plaintiffs' complaint; they also impleaded as "counter-defendants" the husbands Leonardo A. Aurelio and Yao Bun-Shiong, alleging those husbands advised, conspired and actively participated in the acts complained of.
The Sabio spouses obtained an ex parte order allowing service of summons on Aurelio and Yao without requiring them to pay filing fees. The joined husbands (here petitioners) moved to dismiss and to expunge the counter-complaint; Judge Alday denied the motion on April 11, 1988, and denied reconsideration on September 29, 1988. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals seeking annulment of the RTC orders; the Court of Appeals dismissed that petition, holding the pleading was a compulsory counterclaim (despite being titled "Compulsory Counter-Complaint") and that no separate filing fee could be required.
The...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is a special civil action under Rule 65 for certiorari and mandamus the proper remedy when the petition raises no question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion?
- Was the pleading filed by the Sabio spouses a third‑party complaint requiring a separate filing fee, or a compulsory counterclaim that did not require a separate filing fee, and did the mislabeling as a "Compulsory ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)