Scribd
Upload
516 views1 page

Agustin v. Bacalan

The case involved a lessee, Bacalan, who was sued for nonpayment of rent by the property owner, Agustin. Bacalan filed a counterclaim alleging the suit was filed in bad faith. The city court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered Bacalan to vacate. On appeal, the Court of First Instance reversed in Bacalan's favor and awarded damages exceeding the city court's jurisdiction. Agustin claimed these damages were void. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of First Instance cannot award a counterclaim exceeding the lower court's jurisdiction on appeal, as the scope is limited to the original complaint and answer. A counterclaim beyond jurisdiction can only be used defensively, not to obtain affirmative relief.

Uploaded by

virvsha Indoloz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
516 views1 page

Agustin v. Bacalan

The case involved a lessee, Bacalan, who was sued for nonpayment of rent by the property owner, Agustin. Bacalan filed a counterclaim alleging the suit was filed in bad faith. The city court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered Bacalan to vacate. On appeal, the Court of First Instance reversed in Bacalan's favor and awarded damages exceeding the city court's jurisdiction. Agustin claimed these damages were void. The Supreme Court ruled the Court of First Instance cannot award a counterclaim exceeding the lower court's jurisdiction on appeal, as the scope is limited to the original complaint and answer. A counterclaim beyond jurisdiction can only be used defensively, not to obtain affirmative relief.

Uploaded by

virvsha Indoloz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Agustin vs. Bacalan, GR No.

L-46000, March 18, 1985, 135 SCRA 340

Facts: Bacalan is a lessee of a one-door ground floor space in a building owned by the late
Susana Agustin. Due to nonpayment of rentals an action to eject him was filed.
In his answer, Bacalan included a counter- claim alleging that the action was "unfounded and
devoid of merits, tainted with malice and bad faith on the part of the plaintiff, and filed
merely to annoy, vex, embarrass and inconvenience the defendant." The City Court of Cebu
subsequently rendered judgment dismissing the counterclaim and ordering the defendant
to vacate the premises in question and to pay the plaintiff the unpaid back rentals and
attorneyʼs fees. From this decision, the defendant filed an appeal with Branch III of the
Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. CFI reverses in favor of Bacalan, it also awarded huge
amounts of damages. No appeal was taken by the plaintiff-appellant. The decision lapsed into
finality and became executory. A writ of execution was issued by virtue of which a notice to
sell at public auction real properties belonging to the estate of Susana Agustin was issued
by the Deputy Sheriff to satisfy judgment in the case. Plaintiff s counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration, confessing his fault and giving the reason why he failed to perfect the
appeal on time. The motion was denied. Agustin files a new complaint, wherein he claims
that the damages awarded are beyond jurisdiction of City court of Cebu, hence void.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance may, in an appeal, award the defendant-
appellee's counterclaim in an amount exceeding or beyond the jurisdiction of the court of
origin

Ruling: No. A court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a set-off or counterclaim in
excess of its jurisdiction. A counterclaim beyond the court’s jurisdiction may only be pleaded
by way of defense, the purpose of which, however, is only to defeat or weaken plaintif’s claim,
but not to obtain affirmative relief (Section 5, Rule 5). In the case at bar, Bacalan set up his
claim in excess of the jurisdiction of the city court as a compulsory counterclaim. The rule
is that a counterclaim not presented in the inferior court cannot be entertained in the
Court of First Instance on appeal (Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines,
Vol. III, p. 26, citing the cases of Bernardo v. Genato, 11 Phil. 603 and Yu Lay v. Galmes,
40 Phil. 651). As explained in Yu Lay v. Galmes—"Upon an appeal to a court of first
instance from the judgment of a justice of the peace, it is not possible, without changing
the purpose of the appeal, to alter the nature of the question raised by the complaint and
the answer in the original action. There can be no doubt, therefore, of the scope of the
doctrine laid down in the several decisions of the Court. Consequently, We hold that, upon
an appeal to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff as well as the defendant cannot file
any pleading or allegation which raises a question essentially distinct from that raised and
decided in the justice of the peace court.”

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