JAY ANTHONY M.
BANTUGAN
Civil Procedure/Atty. Marian Castillo-Pasia
CASE TITLE DOCTRINE/S FACTS ISSUE/S RULING
G.R. No. 221062, Essentially, the On February 10, 1994, Ogsos, Sr. and the W/N respondents' The Court finds that the counterclaim of
October 05, 2016 nature of a Heirs of Fermina Pepico (Fermina), counterclaim for respondents is permissive in nature. This is
counterclaim is represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, damages is because: (a) the issue in the main case, i.e.,
ELIZABETH SY- determinative of Catalino V. Noel, entered into a Contract of compulsory and not whether or not respondents are liable to pay
VARGAS, Petitione whether or not the Lease (lease contract) covering five (5) permissive in nature, lease rentals, is entirely different from the
r, v. THE ESTATE counterclaimant is parcels of agricultural land owned by the and thus, no payment issue in the counterclaim, i.e., whether or
OF ROLANDO required to pay latter. Based on the contract, Ogsos, Sr. of docket fees is not petitioner and Kathryn are liable for
OGSOS, SR. AND docket fees. The rule agreed to pay the Heirs of Fermina 230 piculs required damages for taking over the possession of
ROLANDO in permissive or 290.95 liquid-kilogram (lkg.) of centrifugal the leased premises and harvesting and
OGSOS, counterclaims is that sugar every crop year, starting from crop year appropriating respondents' crops planted
JR., Respondent. for the trial court to 1994-1995 to crop year 2000-2001, as lease therein; (b) since petitioner and respondents'
acquire jurisdiction, rental.nr Petitioner and Kathryn, who are respective causes of action arose from
the counterclaimant among the heirs of Fermina, claimed that the completely different occurrences, the latter
is bound to pay the lease rentals from crop year 1994-1995 to would not be barred by res judicata had they
prescribed docket crop year 1998-1999 were not paid. Thus, on opted to litigate its counterclaim in a
fees.49 On the other April 27, 2000, they filed a Complaint for separate proceeding; (c) the evidence
hand, the prevailing Specific Performance and Damages against required to prove petitioner's claim that
rule with respect to respondents, before the RTC, docketed as respondents failed to pay lease rentals is
compulsory Civil Case No. 12708, to recover the unpaid likewise different from the evidence
counterclaims is that lease rentals. On October 17, 2006, petitioner required to prove respondents' counterclaim
no filing fees are and Kathryn filed a motion to dismiss that petitioner and Kathryn are liable for
required for the trial respondents' counterclaim arguing that the damages for performing acts in bad faith;
court to acquire same were permissive and that respondents and (d) the recovery of petitioner's claim is
jurisdiction over the had not paid the appropriate docket not contingent or dependent upon proof of
subject matter. fees. However, the RTC, in its November 16, respondents' counterclaim, such that
2006 Order, denied the said motion, declaring conducting separate trials will not result in
respondents' counterclaim as compulsory; the substantial duplication of the time and
thus, holding that the payment of the required effort of the court and the parties.
docket fees was no longer necessary.
Page 1 of 3
JAY ANTHONY M. BANTUGAN
Civil Procedure/Atty. Marian Castillo-Pasia
CASE TITLE DOCTRINE/S FACTS ISSUE/S RULING
G.R. No. 155713
May 5, 2006 The primordial Petitioner filed against the respondent an Whether the court of YES. CA erred and it should proceed with
objective of the action for Unlawful Detainer. Upon elevation, appeals gravely erred the appeal.
MILAGROS G. Katarungang RTC directed the parties to go back to the in dismissing the
LUMBUAN,* Petiti Pambarangay Rules, Lupon Chairman or Punong Barangay for complaint for the Here, the Lupon/Pangkat Chairman and
oner, is to reduce the further proceedings and to comply strictly alleged failure of the Lupon/Pangkat Secretary signed the
vs. number of court with the condition that should the parties fail parties to comply Certificate to File Action stating that no
ALFREDO A. litigations and to reach an amicable settlement, the entire with the mandatory settlement was reached by the parties.
RONQUILLO, Res prevent the records of the case will be remanded to MeTC mediation and While admittedly no pangkat was
pondent. deterioration of the of Manila for it to decide the case anew. On conciliation constituted, it was not denied that the
quality of justice petition for review with the CA, it ruled that proceedings in the parties met at the office of the Barangay
which has been when a complaint is prematurely instituted, as barangay level Chairman for possible settlement. The
brought about by the when the mandatory mediation and efforts of the Barangay Chairman, however,
indiscriminate filing conciliation in the barangay level had not proved futile as no agreement was reached.
of cases in the been complied with, the court should dismiss Although no pangkat was formed, in our
courts. the case and not just remand the records to the mind, there was substantial compliance with
court of origin so that the parties may go the law. It is noteworthy that under the
through the prerequisite proceedings. aforequoted provision, the confrontation
before the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat
is sufficient compliance with the
precondition for filing the case in court.
This is true notwithstanding the mandate of
Section 410(b) of the same law that the
Barangay Chairman shall constitute a
pangkat if he fails in his mediation efforts.
Section 410(b) should be construed together
with Section 412, as well as the
circumstances obtaining in and peculiar to
the case.
Page 2 of 3
JAY ANTHONY M. BANTUGAN
Civil Procedure/Atty. Marian Castillo-Pasia
CASE TITLE DOCTRINE/S FACTS ISSUE/S RULING
G.R. No. 86773 A rule, that had been Southeast Asian Fisheries Development W/N NLRC has Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
February 14, 1992 upheld in decisions Center-Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC- jurisdiction over the Center-Aquaculture Department
so numerous to cite AQD) is a department of an international case? (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an international
SOUTHEAST is that the organization, the Southeast Asian Fisheries agency beyond the jurisdiction of public
ASIAN jurisdiction of a Development Center, organized through an respondent NLRC. Being an
FISHERIES court over the agreement entered into in Bangkok, Thailand. intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC
DEVELOPMENT subject matter of the Juvenal Lazaga was employed as a Research including its Departments (AQD), enjoys
CENTER- action is a matter of Associate. Lacanilao in his capacity as Chief functional independence and freedom from
AQUACULTURE law and may not be of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of control of the state in whose territory its
DEPARTMENT conferred by consent termination to private respondent informing office is located.
(SEAFDEC-AQD), or agreement of the him that due to the financial constraints being
DR. FLOR parties. The lack of experienced by the department, his services
LACANILAO jurisdiction of a shall be terminated. SEAFDEC-AQD's failure
(CHIEF), RUFIL court may be raised to pay Lazaga his separation pay forced him
CUEVAS (HEAD, at any stage of the to file a case with the NLRC. The LA and
ADMINISTRATIV proceedings, even on NLRC ruled in favor of Lazaga. SEAFDEC-
E DIV.), BEN appeal. One of the AQD claimed that the NLRC has no
DELOS REYES basic immunities of jurisdiction over the case
(FINANCE an international
OFFICER), petition organization is
ers, immunity from local
vs. jurisdiction, i.e., that
NATIONAL it is immune from
LABOR the legal writs and
RELATIONS processes issued by
COMMISSION and the tribunals of the
JUVENAL country where it is
LAZAGA, respond found.
ents.
Page 3 of 3
