Abraham filed a complaint for damages in the amount of ₱750,000.00 against Salvador in the RTC in Quezon City for the latter’s alleged breach of their contract of services. Salvador promptly filed his answer, and included a counterclaim for ₱250,000.00 arising from the allegedly baseless and malicious claims of Abraham that compelled him to litigate and to engage the services of counsel, and thus caused him to suffer mental anguish.
Noting that the amount of the counterclaim was below the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC, Abraham filed a motion to dismiss vis-8-vis the counterclaim on that ground.
Should the counterclaim of Salvador be dismissed? Explain your answer. (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, Salvador's counterclaim should not be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Under Section 7, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, in an original action before the Regional Trial Court, a counterclaim that arises out of
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does a Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim with an amount below its general jurisdictional threshold?
The RTC possesses jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim regardless of the monetary amount involved.
What test determines whether a counterclaim is compulsory under Rule 6 of the Rules of Court?
A counterclaim is compulsory if it passes the logical relation test by arising out of the same transaction or occurrence.
How is a counterclaim for damages based on the alleged malicious filing of the main action classified?
A claim for damages arising from the alleged malicious filing of the complaint is a compulsory counterclaim.
What is the consequence if a defendant fails to raise a compulsory counterclaim in his answer?
Choices available with full access.
Which requirement distinguishes a permissive counterclaim from a compulsory counterclaim?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Compulsory Counterclaims
Under Section 7, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, a compulsory counterclaim is one which, arising out of or connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim, does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. A counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees grounded on the allegedly malicious and unfounded filing of the main complaint is logically related to the principal action. Consequently, such a claim is classified as a compulsory counterclaim that must be set up in the same action.
2. Counterclaim Jurisdiction Rules
In an original action filed before the Regional Trial Court, the court acquires jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim regardless of the monetary amount involved. Although first-level courts generally possess exclusive original jurisdiction over money claims below the statutory jurisdictional threshold, this threshold rule applies primarily to initiation of independent principal actions. A compulsory counterclaim is ancillary to the main action; thus, the Regional Trial Court retains jurisdiction over the compulsory counterclaim even if the monetary damages sought fall below its usual minimum jurisdictional amount.
3. Permissive Versus Compulsory
The distinction between compulsory and permissive counterclaims is crucial for jurisdictional and procedural purposes. A permissive counterclaim arises from an independent transaction or occurrence not logically connected to the main cause of action and requires an independent jurisdictional basis, as well as the payment of docket fees. In contrast, a compulsory counterclaim is inherently linked to the plaintiff's cause of action, is barred if not raised in the answer, and falls within the trial court's ancillary jurisdiction regardless of whether the monetary claim meets the court's general jurisdictional threshold.