SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 214074, February 05, 2024 ]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. MEDIAN CONTAINER CORPORATION AND ELDON INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
DISSENT
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
I take exception to the ponencia's ruling that the counterclaim of petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the complaint for reformation of respondents Median Container Corporation and Eldon Industrial Corporation is permissive and not compulsory.
In Gojo v. Goyala,1 the Court ordained that the reformation of an instrument is a compulsory counterclaim to a case filed which alleged the fulfillment of the conditions in a contract such as the expiration of a right to repurchase. This is because the two actions arose out of or are necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint:
In the instant case, there can be no doubt that appellant's counterclaim was a compulsory one inasmuch as it arises out of or is necessarily connected with transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint; the complaint alleged that the right of appellee to repurchase the property in question had already expired and asked for an order of consolidation; on the other hand, appellant's counterclaim was for reformation of the deed claiming that it was only a mortgage. Thus the counterclaim was clearly inconsistent with and directly controverted the whole theory and basic allegations of the complaint. In consequence, appellant's complaint stood as the answer to appellee's counterclaim; hence, the incorrectness of the trial court's order declaring the appellant in default in regard to said counterclaim is evident.
Similarly, the counterclaim of PNB, which seeks to collect the amount due it under the trust agreement cannot be deemed to have been sourced from a separate obligation, albeit respondents seek the reformation of the same contract into a mere contract of loan.(awÞhi( More, the said counterclaim is relevant to the defense of PNB that the contract is one of trust.
Too, as stated in the ponencia, one of the factors that must be fulfilled in determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory is if res judicata would bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim. In this regard, it has been previously ruled in Spouses Abines v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,2 that a judgment in a collection case would be res judicata in the reformation case, viz.:
Clearly then, the resolution of both cases revolve on the validity and enforceability of the promissory notes and real estate mortgages and foreclosure proceedings. A judgment in the COLLECTION CASE will be res judicata in the REFORMATION CASE and vice versa. The same evidence would be presented and the same subject matter would be litigated. Thus, in Casil v. Court of Appeals, where the petitioner filed a case against private respondent for the enforcement of their agreement while private respondent subsequently filed a case against petitioner for the rescission of this same agreement, we ruled that the first case would constitute res judicata in the second case.
Based on the foregoing, it is my position that PNB's claim to collect the amount due it from respondents is a compulsory counterclaim.
Another. Treating the counterclaim of PNB as compulsory rather than permissive is compatible with judicial economy.
THUS, I vote to GRANT the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Decision dated March 19, 2014, and Resolution dated August 18, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121782 should be REVERSED.
Footnotes
1 146 Phil. 522, 530 (1970) [Per J. Barredo].
2 517 Phil. 609, 617-618 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
