Medina v. Maderera Del Norte De Catanduanes, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Antonio Medina filed a complaint against defendant Maderera del Norte de Catanduanes, Inc. for the recovery of P4,301.90. A preliminary attachment was issued at the instance of the plaintiff. Procedural History: The defendant filed an answer which included a counterclaim for damages amounting to P20,000, alleging that the preliminary attachment was issued without just cause or justification, causing the paralysis of its business and loss of prestige. The trial court sustained the plaintiff's demurrer to the counterclaim and ordered it dismissed. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Albay, assigning as error the dismissal of its counterclaim.
Issue(s)
Whether the claim for damages occasioned by an attachment can be made in the form of a counterclaim in the principal suit or must be made in an independent action after final judgment. Whether the facts alleged in the defendant's answer are sufficient to constitute a counterclaim.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from, as well as the order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the counterclaim, is reversed. The record is ordered remanded to the court below, which shall admit the counterclaim and proceed to hold the proper trial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Court held that a claim for damages occasioned by the wrongful issuance of an attachment can be made in the form of a counterclaim in the principal suit. Citing the case of Raymundo vs. Carpio, the Court stated that it is proper practice to tender an issue on the subject in the defendant's answer in the main cause. All questions material or incidental to the main action should be presented and litigated simultaneously to avoid subsequent litigation. It is not necessary to wait for a final decision in the main action to determine if damages are warranted. On the second issue: The Court found that the facts alleged in the defendant's counterclaim were sufficient to constitute a counterclaim. The counterclaim alleged that the preliminary attachment was issued "without just cause or any justification therefor." The Court found this phrase to be equivalent to the statutory requirement of "wrongful or without sufficient cause." The Court noted that a general allegation that the attachment was "wrongfully" sued out is sufficient, whether redress is sought by an action on the bond or by a plea in reconvention. Therefore, the defendant's allegation was sufficient to establish a counterclaim for damages.
Main Doctrine
A claim for damages occasioned by the wrongful issuance of an attachment may be made in the form of a counterclaim in the principal suit, and a general allegation that the attachment was issued without just cause or any justification therefor is sufficient to constitute such a counterclaim.