F2. Kinds of Pleadings 2 Flashcards
CROSSCLAIM
Any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of either the original action, or a counterclaim therein. Such crossclaim may cover all or part of the original claim. (Sec. 8, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
Requisites of Crossclaim (1999 BAR)
- A claim by one party against a co-party;
- It must arise out of the subject matter of the complaint or of the counterclaim; and
- The cross-claimant is prejudiced by the claim against him by the opposing party.
(Sec. 8, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
Effect if a Crossclaim was not Set Up
GR: Barred if not set up. (Sec.2, Rule 9, ROC, as amended)
XPN:
- Crossclaim arising after answer (Sec. 9, Rule 11, ROC, as amended); and
- Omitted crossclaim. (Ibid.)
Counterclaim vs. Crossclaim
- claim against whom
- arise out of the same transaction
COUNTERCLAIM
It is a claim against an opposing party, (Sec. 6, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
It may or may not arise out of the subject matter of the complaint, as it may be permissive or compulsory. (Sec. 7, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
CROSSCLAIM
It is a claim against a co-party. (Sec. 8, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
It must arise from the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original complaint. (Sec. 8, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
THIRD (FOURTH, ETC.)-PARTY COMPLAINT
A third (fourth, etc.) party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his or her opponent’s claim. (Sec. 11, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
Instances when Third-Party Complaint shall be Denied and Separate Action must be Instituted
The complaint shall be denied and the defendant should then institute a separate action, where:
a. The third (fourth, etc.) –party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave;
b. Matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or
c. The effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action. (Sec. 11, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
THIRD-PARTY
COMPLAINT
It is proper when
none of the thirdparty defendants
therein is a party to
the main action.
(Riano, 2019)
RULES ON BRINGING
IN NEW PARTIES
If one or more of the
defendants in a
counterclaim or
crossclaim is already
a party to the action,
then the other
necessary parties
may be brought in
under the rules on
bringing in new
parties. (2004 BAR)
Instances when Third-Party Complaint shall be Denied and Separate Action must be Instituted
Instances when Third-Party Complaint shall be Denied and Separate Action must be Instituted The complaint shall be denied and the defendant should then institute a separate action, where:
a. The third (fourth, etc.) –party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave;
b. Matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or
c. The effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action. (Sec. 11, Rule 6, ROC, as amended)
Tests to Determine Whether the Third-Party
Complaint is in respect of Plaintiff’s Claim
- Whether it arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiff’s claim is based, or, although arising out of another or different transaction, is connected with the plaintiff’s claim;
- Whether the third-party defendant would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the original defendant; and
- Whether the third-party defendant may assert any defenses which the third-party plaintiff has or may have to the plaintiff’s claim. (Capayas v. CFI of Albay, G.R. No. L-475, 31 Aug. 1946)
Q: Abby obtained a favorable judgment against UNICAP for a sum of money. For failure to get full payment, Abby went after UNICAP’s debtor, Ben. Ben is a policy holder of Insular. The court’s sheriff then served a notice of garnishment to Insular over several account receivables due to Ben. Insular refused to comply with the order alleging adverse claims over the garnished amounts. The trial court ordered Insular to release to Abby the said account receivables of Ben under the policies. Insular then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging that the trial judge gravely abused his discretion when he issued the garnishment order despite its adverse claim on the garnished amounts. The CA gave due course to the petition and annulled the order of the trial court. Is the CA correct?
A: NO. Neither an appeal nor a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy from the denial of a thirdparty claim. Since the third-party claimant is not one of the parties to the action, he could not, strictly speak, appeal from the order denying its claim, but should file a separate reinvindicatory action against the execution creditor or a complaint for damages against the bond filed by the judgment creditor in favor of the sheriff. The rights of a third-party claimant should be decided in a separate action to be instituted by the third person. (Solidum v. CA, G.R. No. 161647, 22 June 2006
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
It is a pleading filed for the purpose of asserting a claim against either or all of the original parties.
(Sec. 3, Rule 19, 2019, ROC, as amended
Is intervention an independent action?
Intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation, and in subordination to the main proceeding. (Saw v. CA, G.R. No. 90580, 08 Apr. 1991) An intervention is merely an interlocutory proceeding dependent or subsidiary to the main action. If the main action ceased to exist, there is no pending proceeding wherein the intervention may be based. A judgment approving a compromise agreement is final and immediately executory. Continuance of an intervention in this case would serve no purpose at all. (Ordoñez v. Gustillo, G.R. No. 81835, 20 Dec. 1990)
Requisites for an Intervention by a non-party in an action pending in court (2000 BAR)
- There must be a motion for leave to intervene filed before rendition of judgment by the trial court.
- Movant must show that he or she has a:
a. Legal interest in the matter in controversy;
b. Legal interest in the success of either of the parties; or
c. Legal interest against both; or
d. So situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof.
e. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of original parties; and
f. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding. (Sec. 1, Rule 19, ROC, as amended)
How to Intervene
How to Intervene
- With leave of court, the court shall consider the requisites mentioned in Section 1, Rule 19;
- Motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court (Sec. 2, Rule 19, ROC, as amended); and
- Copy of the pleadings-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties. (Sec. 2, Rule 19, ROC, as amended)
When to Intervene
GR: The motion to intervene must be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. (Sec.2, Rule 19, ROC, as amended)
XPNs:
- With respect to indispensable parties, intervention may be allowed even on appeal (Falcasantos v. Falcasantos, G.R. No. L-4627, 29 Mar. 1952);
- When the intervenor is the Republic (Lim v. Pacquing, G.R. No. 115044, 27 Jan. 1995); and
- Intervention may be allowed after judgment where necessary to protect some interest which cannot otherwise be protected, and for the purpose of preserving the intervenor’s right to appeal. (Pinlac v. CA, G.R. No. 91486, 10 Sept. 2003)
