Rule 6 - Cases

Memita vs. Songsong

“Magnolia Chiken Delivery”

Sales Invoice over load matters and issue forms

If the allegation is not specifically denied, and such facts were not alleged, the evidence shall be deemed admitted.

Ridao vs. Handmade Credit and Loans

Brother-in-law niya ang agent ng ni-loanan niya.

When she defaulted, she argued that the loan was extended to her as a relative and not as a creditor.

• A document becomes actionable only if it clearly establishes the specific right or obligation it purports to evidence, as provided by Sections 7 and 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.

• The principle of implied admission by failure to reply under oath applies only to actionable documents.

• Evidentiary Value of Written Instruments

  • A written instrument must clearly embody the terms and conditions creating a right or obligation for it to be actionable.

  • A mere record or ledger entry indicating the receipt of payment does not fulfill this requirement.

Colmenar vs. Colmenar (Dismissal without prejudice)

A legitimate and lawful heir deprived of his inheritance by Jeannie, Pollo, and Victoria who sold the properties to the ProFriends.

• Rule 15, Sec. 12–13 (2020 Rules):

  • If affirmative defense is PURE (Prescription, Unenforceability, Res judicata, Extinction of claim) → dismissal is with prejudice → remedy is appeal.

  • If affirmative defense is NOT PURE → dismissal is without prejudice → remedy is Rule 65 petition.

  • Motion for reconsideration is not allowed against an order granting an affirmative defense.

• In Colmenar, the grounds raised (failure to state a cause of action, lack of capacity to sue) were not PURE defenses → dismissal was erroneous and cannot be with prejudice.

Metropolitan Bank vs. CPR

Spouses Reynoso and CPR promotions loaned kay MTC. Nung di nakabayad, na-foreclose. Tapos, kulang pala. Sabi ng petitioners, eh bakit di niyo sinali sa compulsory counterclaim.

Reqs of a compulsory counterclaim

Tests of compulsory counterclaim: same issues? would result to res judicata absent the counterclaim? the same evidence? with logical relation that would result to duplicity?

Tiongson vs. NHA

Expropriation proceeding by the NHA of houses in Tondo Maynila, which was not granted because of it not being for public purpose. Hence, the counterclaim by Tiongson was also denied it being a compulsory counterclaim.

Carpio vs. Rural Bank of Sto. Tomas

Initiatory Pleading vs. Responsive Pleading.

Si Petitioner Carpio, kumuha siya ngloan sa RBST na secured ng mortgage. Tapos, yung di nakabayad, agad agad ni foreclose ng RBST kahit walang proper notification. Yung walang naisip na dahilan, sabi ng bank, ang CC daw ay walang cert. against forum shopping, pero ito ay responsive pleading, hindi initiatory pleading.

Sy-Vargas vs. Estate of Ogsos

The Sy-Vargas Lessor demanded for the payment of unpaid sugar rentals from the respondents, but the respondents counterclaimed the loss of their profits due to the possession of their lessor of the land and damages. The petitioners argued that such counterclaim is permissive, and shall be dismissed for not being paid docket fees for.

WON the counterclaim is a permissive counterclaim.

The SC affirmed. It is a permissive counterclaim for its issue is entirely different from the main issue which is the non-payment of rentals. Its cause of action is also different. Also, it required evidence different from that required in the main issue. However, non-payment of docket fee does not warrant ipso facto dismissal of the claim.

Casent Realty Development Corp vs. PhilBanking Corporation

Casent Realty Development Corp executed two promissory notes in favor of the PhilBanking Corporation in a Deed of Assignment. It failed to settle the claim. Then, the respondent prayed for the collection of a sum of money. However, Casent argues that they already executed Dacion en Pago which extinguished the obligation through a Confirmation Statement. The petitioner argued that the non-denial of the document does not admit it because it is deemed uncontroverted.

WON the specific denial of the Confirmation Statement required not to admit such document in a reply.

Yes. The controlling provision is Sec 8, Rule 8 and not Sec10 Rule 6.