"x x x a compulsory counterclaim is auxiliary to the proceeding in
the original suit and derives its jurisdictional support therefrom,
inasmuch as it arises out of or is necessarily connected with the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint.
It follows that if the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the
main action of the case and dismisses the same, then the compulsory
counterclaim, being ancilliary to the main action, must likewise be
dismissed since no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under
the counterclaim.[15]
"The aforementioned doctrine is in consonance with the primary objective of a counterclaim which is to avoid and prevent circuity of action by allowing the entire controversy between the parties to be litigated and finally determined in one action, wherever this can be done with justice to all parties concerned."[16]
Furthermore, there is no denying the fact that it was private respondent herself who caused the dismissal of her counterclaim for not only did she fail to object to, but she actually moved for the dismissal of the complaint.[17] In the words of Justice Abad Santos,
"x x x The petitioner (private respondent in this case) does not object to the dismissal of the civil case but nonetheless wants her counterclaim therein to subsist. Impossible. A person cannot eat his cake and have it at the same time. If the civil case is dismissed, so also is the counterclaim filed therein."[18]
INTESTATE ESTATE OF AMADO B. DALISAY, represented by Special Administratrix PRECIOSA D. TIROL, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMEO D. MARASIGAN and LOURDES OPPUS, respondents.
"The aforementioned doctrine is in consonance with the primary objective of a counterclaim which is to avoid and prevent circuity of action by allowing the entire controversy between the parties to be litigated and finally determined in one action, wherever this can be done with justice to all parties concerned."[16]
Furthermore, there is no denying the fact that it was private respondent herself who caused the dismissal of her counterclaim for not only did she fail to object to, but she actually moved for the dismissal of the complaint.[17] In the words of Justice Abad Santos,
"x x x The petitioner (private respondent in this case) does not object to the dismissal of the civil case but nonetheless wants her counterclaim therein to subsist. Impossible. A person cannot eat his cake and have it at the same time. If the civil case is dismissed, so also is the counterclaim filed therein."[18]
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 115088. June 20, 1996INTESTATE ESTATE OF AMADO B. DALISAY, represented by Special Administratrix PRECIOSA D. TIROL, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMEO D. MARASIGAN and LOURDES OPPUS, respondents.
