View full case

YOLANDA VILLANUEVA-ONG v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

FACTS:

Juan Ponce Enrile filed a civil complaint for damages against Yolanda Villanueva-Ong, alleging that Ong published a libelous article in the Philippine Star. Enrile claimed that the article defamed and disparaged him by portraying him as a liar, fraud, and manipulator, and by insinuating his involvement in car smuggling. He argued that the article caused him dishonor and contempt.

In response, Yolanda Villanueva-Ong filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims. She contended that Enrile's lawsuit was a form of harassment, malice, and bad faith. Ong also invoked her constitutional right to express her opinion and make fair comments on matters of public interest.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a ruling ordering Ong to pay the proper docket fees for her counterclaims, otherwise, they would be dismissed. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently affirmed the RTC's decision in its denial of Ong's petition for certiorari. Dissatisfied with the CA's ruling, Ong now seeks a review of the decision, arguing that her counterclaims should be considered as compulsory in nature.

ISSUES:

  1. Are petitioner's counterclaims compulsory or permissive in nature?

  2. Whether the counterclaims set up by the petitioner should be dismissed.

  3. Whether the filing of a malicious and baseless suit by the respondent negates the counterclaim for damages by the petitioner.

RULING:

  1. The counterclaims filed by the petitioner are compulsory in nature and should be resolved along with the civil complaint filed by the respondent, without the need to comply with the requirements of initiatory pleadings. A perfunctory reading shows that the petitioner's counterclaims essentially argue that the respondent's suit is unfounded and is filed to harass and vex the petitioner. The counterclaims for damages and attorney's fees on the grounds of malicious prosecution fall under the classification of compulsory counterclaims and must be pleaded in the same action, otherwise, they are barred.

  2. The counterclaims set up by the petitioner should not be dismissed. The evidence supporting the respondent's cause of action, which is the malicious publication of an article, would necessarily negate the counterclaim for damages based on the malicious and baseless suit filed by the respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A compulsory counterclaim is one that arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It does not require the presence of third parties for its adjudication and must be within the jurisdiction of the court as to the amount and nature. A compulsory counterclaim is barred if not set up in the same action.

  • A permissive counterclaim is independent and does not arise out of or is necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. It may be filed separately in another case.

  • The determination of the nature of a counterclaim is relevant for compliance with the requirements of initiatory pleadings. Permissive counterclaims require the payment of docket fees, while compulsory counterclaims do not.

  • Tests to determine the nature of a counterclaim include whether the issues raised by the claim and counterclaim are largely the same, whether res judicata would bar a subsequent suit on the defendant's claims, whether substantially the same evidence supports or refutes the plaintiff's claim and defendant's counterclaim, and whether there is a logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim.

  • The recovery of possession of property is a permissive counterclaim, which may be asserted in a separate proceeding even if not set up in the answer to the complaint in the same case. This is distinct from the legal consequences of the transaction between the parties. (Bungcayao, Sr. v. Fort Ilocandia Property Holdings and Development Corp.)

  • The compulsory nature of counterclaims is not diluted by citing Article 32 of the Civil Code. (Alday v. FGU Insurance Corporation)

  • The payment of docket fees on compulsory counterclaims has been suspended. (OCA Circular No. 96-2009)