Scribd
Upload
260 views2 pages

Civpro Digest - ICTSI Vs CA

(1) SHARP filed a complaint against DOTC, PPA, E. Razon, and ICTSI which ICTSI answered with a compulsory counterclaim. (2) The RTC dismissed SHARP's complaint and nullified the writ of preliminary injunction. PPA and ICTSI then moved to dismiss. (3) The RTC dismissed the complaint and counterclaim. The SC upheld this, finding that as a compulsory counterclaim intertwined with the complaint, it could not remain pending after the complaint's dismissal, especially since ICTSI did not object or reserve its right to pursue the counterclaim.

Uploaded by

Cari Mangalindan Macaalay
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
260 views2 pages

Civpro Digest - ICTSI Vs CA

(1) SHARP filed a complaint against DOTC, PPA, E. Razon, and ICTSI which ICTSI answered with a compulsory counterclaim. (2) The RTC dismissed SHARP's complaint and nullified the writ of preliminary injunction. PPA and ICTSI then moved to dismiss. (3) The RTC dismissed the complaint and counterclaim. The SC upheld this, finding that as a compulsory counterclaim intertwined with the complaint, it could not remain pending after the complaint's dismissal, especially since ICTSI did not object or reserve its right to pursue the counterclaim.

Uploaded by

Cari Mangalindan Macaalay
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CivPro 120 ICTSI vs CA (1992) Doctrine: The dismissal of the complaint operates to dismiss the counterclaim since (1)

) ICTSI itself moved for the dismissal of the complaint and (2) also because this is a compulsory counterclaim so intertwined with the complaint. Facts: SHARP filed a COMPLAINT FOR PROHIBITION WITH PRAYER FOR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION against (1) Sec of Transportation and Communication, (2) Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), (3) E. Razon, Inc. and (4) International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) with RTC, Manila. ICTSI filed ANSWER with COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM against SHARP for its unfounded and frivolous action, the consequence of which it had suffered injuries. RTC nullified the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier issued on the grounds that SHARP is not a proper party to stop the negotiationa nd awarding of contract for the developlment. Furthermore, SHARP violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. In view of the nullification of the writ of PI, PPA and ICTSI filed a motion to dismiss. RTC: dismissed the complaint as well as the counterclaim. SC: ICTSI filed this petition for review, alleging that the dismissal of the counterclaim by the RTC was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Issue/s: WON RTC erred in dismissing the counterclaim? NO! Held/Ratio: ICTIs counterclaim in this case is COMPULSORY. Requisites for a compulsory counterclaim: 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 for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction; and 3. the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In this case, the evidence needed to sustain the counterclaim would also refute the cause of action alleged in the complaint. It is clear that the counterclaim would succeed only if the claim would not. The dismissal of the complaint operated also to dismiss the counterclaim for 2 reasons: 1. ICTSI itself joined PPA in moving for the dismissal of the complaint. 2. The compulsory counterclaim was so intertwined with the complaint that it could not remain pending for adjudicaton by the court after the dismisal of the complaint which had provoked the counterclaim in the first place. In this case, ICTSI souldve objected to the dismissal of the complaint or at least reserved its right to prosecute it. (OBITER, but might be impt) Distinction between compulsory and permissive counterclaim: the latter does not arise out of nor is necessarily connected with the subject matter of the opposing partys claim. It is not barred even if not set up in the action.

Digested by: Cari Mangalindan (A2015)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy