G.R. NO. 160354 - BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPS. GABRIEL G. LOCSIN AND MA. GERALDINE R. LOCSIN.

Ruling

accordingly prayed in its complaint that the Locsins be ordered to pay it jointly and severally the outstanding obligation in the sum of PESOS: ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHTY NINE & 84/100 (1,144,089.84), plus interest thereon at the rate of twenty five and a half percent (25.5%) per annum from 23 September 1998, the date of the foreclosure sale, until the obligation has been fully paid; attorney's fees in the sum of P130,000.00, plus appearance fee of P2,000.00; and costs of suit and expenses of litigation. Other just and equit1able reliefs under the premises are likewise prayed for. [15] (Emphasis in the original). To petitioner's complaint (for sum of money), the Locsins filed a Motion to Dismiss [16] on the ground that it should have been raised as compulsory counterclaim in their (the Locsins') complaint (for specific performance, damages and nullification of the public auction), and by failing to raise it as such, it is now "barred by the rules." To the Motion, petitioner filed its Opposition which merited the Locsins' filing of a Reply to Opposition. [17] Branch 213 of the Mandaluyong RTC denied the Locsins' Motion to Dismiss petitioner's Complaint, by Order of September 18, 2000, [18] in this wise: The motion to dismiss is premised on the ground that plaintiff's claim in the instant case should have been raised in the previous case, [C]ivil [C]ase No. Q98-35337, wherein plaintiff herein was the defendant, said claim being a compulsory counterclaim and for failure to raise the same, it is now barred by the rules. It is noted, however, that the instant case is one for collection of alleged deficiency amount as the proceeds of the foreclosure sale of defendant's properties are not sufficient to cover the entire indebtedness. In effect, such claim did not arise as a consequence of [C]ivil Case No. 098-353337 but was already existing ( sic ) even before the institution of that earlier case . Without necessarily delving into the veracity of plaintiff's claim but merely considering its origin and nature as alleged in the complaint, said claim is merely permissive and not compulsory. Thus, such a claim can stand as an independent action. [19] (Underscoring supplied). The Locsins' Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the Mandaluyong RTC by Order of March 21, 2001, [20] they appealed to the Court of Appeals which, by the present assailed decision of June 5, 2003, [21] reversed the Orders of the Mandaluyong RTC, it finding that petitioner's complaint was a compulsory counterclaim which should have been raised in its Answer to the Locsins' complaint, and having failed to do so, it is now barred; that litis pendentia and res judicata apply to the case; and that petitioner violated the rule on forum shopping, hence, the dismissal of its complaint is warranted. Explained the appellate court: [The Locsins'] complaint in Civil Case No. Q-98-35337, pending before Branch 223 of the Regional; Trial Court of Quezon City asks sp