Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20962. May 27, 1966.]

PACENCIA O. ITCHON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUAN M. BALIGOD and ISABEL S. SEBRANO alias ISABEL S. BALIGOD, Defendants-Appellees.

Artemio R. Alivia, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Veridiano & Siriban for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM; ANOTHER ANSWER REQUIRED. — Where an answer contains a counterclaim, it is not the last pleading that should be filed in order that issues may be considered joined. For a counterclaim is equivalent to a complaint against the plaintiff (Pongos v. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., Et Al., 85 Phil., 499; 47 Off. Gaz., 733) and itself calls for an answer. It is this answer that should be deemed the last pleading necessary for joinder of issues.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NON-JOINDER OF ISSUES; FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO ATTEND TRIAL. — Where the issues had not been joined, the failure of plaintiff to attend the trial did not constitute lack of interest to prosecute.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


This is an appeal by Pacencia O. Ichon from the order of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan dismissing her complaint against the spouses Juan M. Baligod and Isabel S. Serrano alias Isabel S. Baligod.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on September 29, 1961. On October 21, 1961 defendants filed their answer with a counterclaim for actual damages in the amount of P2,000 and moral damages of P10,000. On October 31, 1961 plaintiff filed a motion for a bill of particulars, asking the court to order defendants to specify the items constituting the actual damages mentioned in their counterclaim. On November 11, 1961 the court granted the motion and ordered defendants to specify with definiteness the nature and extent of the actual damages they had allegedly suffered. On July 12, 1962 plaintiff filed a motion to strike out defendants’ counterclaim for actual damages for failure to comply with the order of November 11, 1961. Before this motion could be heard, the clerk of court, on July 19, 1962, issued a notice of hearing, setting the case for trial on the merits on August 14 and 15, 1962. On July 23, 1962 the trial court issued an order denying "in the meantime" plaintiff’s motion on the ground that there was no proof that defendants had received a copy of its order of November 11, 1961, and that there was no showing that they had violated the same. On August 13, 1962 plaintiff’s counsel sent a telegram to the Court asking for postponement of the hearing because issues had not been joined due to defendants’ failure to file a bill of particulars. On the same day plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of denial, and at the same time requested postponement of the trial of the case until the motion for reconsideration had been resolved. The next day the court dismissed the case on the ground that plaintiff’s non-appearance at the trial on that day constituted lack of interest to prosecute. On August 25, 1962 the court issued an order to the effect that in view of the order of dismissal dated August 14, 1962 resolution on the motion for reconsideration dated August 13, 1962 was no longer necessary. On September 6, 1962 plaintiff moved for reconsideration of this order but the court denied the motion on September 22, 1962. So plaintiff appealed.

The questions raised in this appeal are: (1) whether the issues were already joined when the case was calendared for trial; and (2) whether the lower court properly dismissed the case on the ground of plaintiff’s lack of interest to prosecute.

Section 5, Rule 20, Revised Rules of Court, provides that upon the submission of the last pleading in a particular case, it shall be the duty of the clerk of court to place such case in the pre-trial calendar. 1

Since appellees’ answer contains a counterclaim, it is not the last pleading that should be filed in order that issues may be considered joined. For a counterclaim is equivalent to a complaint against the plaintiff (Pongos v. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., Et Al., 84 Phil., 499; 47 Off. Gaz., 733) and itself calls for an answer. It is this answer that should be deemed the last pleading necessary for joinder of issues.

Appellant had ten days from service within which to answer the counterclaim (section 7, Rule 10; now section 4, Rule 11). Failure to do so within said period would have constituted default with respect to the counterclaim (Section 6, Rule 35; now section 10, Rule 6). But before answering appellant filed a motion for bill of particulars, which was granted by the lower court.

After service of the bill of particulars (if one is submitted) the moving party shall have the same time to serve his responsive pleading, if any is permitted by the Rules, as that to which he was entitled at the time of serving his motion, but not less than five (5) days in any event (section 2, Rule 16; now section 1(b), Rule 12). If the order of the court to make a pleading more definite and certain or for a bill of particulars is not obeyed within ten days after notice thereof or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may order the striking out of the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such other order as it deems just; it may also, upon motion, set aside the order, or modify it in the interest of justice (section 1 (c), id.)

Because as late as July 12, 1962 appellees had not yet filed a bill of particulars, appellant filed on that day a motion to strike out their claim for actual damages. The court, however, denied the motion on the ground that there was no showing that appellees had received a copy of its order of November 11, 1961. But the record shows that copies thereof were sent to the respective lawyers of the parties on November 16, 1961, as certified by the clerk of court (page 18, record on appeal). The court could have easily ascertained this fact from the record. Under Rule 16, section 3 (old Rules of Court) appellees had ten days from receipt of the order within which to comply therewith. This they failed to do. Appellant acted in accordance with the Rules in asking for the striking out of appellees’ counterclaim for actual damages. If the court felt that appellees should no longer be required to obey its order of November 11, 1961, then it should have set the order aside, or at least modified it. But the court did neither. It simply denied the motion to strike out without touching the order to appellees to submit a bill of particulars. So this order still stands, although the period to comply with it has lapsed.

If the court had set aside its order of November 11, 1961, appellant should have filed her answer to the whole counterclaim; or if the court had stricken out the counterclaim for actual damages, appellant should have filed her answer to the counterclaim for moral damages alone. In neither case the filing of the answer would have signalled the joinder of issues.

The issues not having been joined, the case should not have been calendared for trial. Consequently appellant’s failure to attend the same did not constitute lack of interest to prosecute.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal is set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings, with costs against appellees.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, J.B.L., Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, J.P., Bengzon, and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The provision of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court (before revision) was as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 1. When issue joined. — Upon the filing of the last pleading, the case shall be included in the trial calendar of the court.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.