Case Digest (G.R. No. 95631)
Facts:
Metals Engineering Resources Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Plaridel Jose, G.R. No. 95631, October 28, 1991, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Metals Engineering Resources Corporation filed Civil Case No. 55560 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 160, seeking annulment of an Agreement to Buy and Sell executed with respondent Plaridel Jose. Jose answered with an "Answer with Counterclaim" setting up a compulsory counterclaim that sought enforcement of the same agreement and damages. The parties disputed, among others, whether the agreement was imperfect and unenforceable and the proper schedule and terms of payment.
Jose moved to expunge the complaint on the ground that it failed to state the amount of damages; the RTC issued an order dated December 15, 1988 requiring petitioner to amend or face dismissal. Petitioner filed an amended complaint to comply. Jose moved for reconsideration, arguing the court never acquired jurisdiction because the wrong docket fee had been paid; on April 12, 1989 the RTC ordered the complaint expunged for lack of jurisdiction. Jose then filed a Motion to Set Case for Presentation of Evidence on his counterclaim. Despite the dismissal of the complaint, the RTC—by Order dated June 20, 1989—allowed Jose to present evidence, reasoning that a compulsory counterclaim is independent in character and must be prosecuted then or be barred. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that order was denied on September 29, 1989.
Petitioner refiled its suit on May 3, 1989 as Civil Case No. 58126 before RTC Pasig, Branch 168. Petitioner sought relief from the Court of Appeals by filing a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to annul the RTC’s June 20 and September 29, 1989 orders; the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated August 9, 1990, dismissed that special civil action, holding the RTC’s ruling was interlocutory and, at most, an error of judgment not corrigible by certi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly hold that the RTC’s order allowing presentation of evidence on the counterclaim was merely interlocutory and not subject to correction by certiorari/prohibition?
- When the main complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, must a compulsory counterclaim that is ancillary to the main action likewise be dismissed?
- Does the failure to pay docket fees deprive a court of jurisdiction to entertain a compulsory count...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)