This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A counterclaim (or a claim which a defending party may have against any party)[16] may be compulsory[17] or permissive. A counterclaim that (1) arises out of (or is necessarily connected with) the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; (2) falls within the jurisdiction of the court and (3) does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, is compulsory.[18] Otherwise, a counterclaim is merely permissive. | |||||
|
2003-06-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Intestate Estate of Dalisay v. Hon. Marasigan,[25] we held that a counterclaim is compulsory where: (1) it arises out of, or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; (2) it does not require the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and (3) the trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. To determine whether a counterclaim is compulsory or not, we have devised the following tests: (1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same? (2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claims absent the compulsory counterclaim rule? (3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as the defendant's counterclaim? and (4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim?[26] | |||||