Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Alday V FGU Insurance

    Uploaded by

    Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
    Alday v FGU Insurance involved a collection suit filed by FGU Insurance against their agent Alday. Alday filed a counterclaim demanding sums owed and damages. FGU filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim due to non-payment of docket fees. The court had to determine if the counterclaim was compulsory or permissive, and when a counterclaim is exempt from docket fees. The court ruled that the counterclaim for recovery of sums was permissive and required docket fees, but the counterclaim for damages was compulsory and exempt from docket fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alday V FGU Insurance

    Uploaded by

    Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
    42 views1 page
    Alday v FGU Insurance involved a collection suit filed by FGU Insurance against their agent Alday. Alday filed a counterclaim demanding sums owed and damages. FGU filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim due to non-payment of docket fees. The court had to determine if the counterclaim was compulsory or permissive, and when a counterclaim is exempt from docket fees. The court ruled that the counterclaim for recovery of sums was permissive and required docket fees, but the counterclaim for damages was compulsory and exempt from docket fees.

    Original Description:

    Alday v FGU digest

    Original Title

    Alday v FGU Insurance

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Alday v FGU Insurance involved a collection suit filed by FGU Insurance against their agent Alday. Alday filed a counterclaim demanding sums owed and damages. FGU filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim due to non-payment of docket fees. The court had to determine if the counterclaim was compulsory or permissive, and when a counterclaim is exempt from docket fees. The court ruled that the counterclaim for recovery of sums was permissive and required docket fees, but the counterclaim for damages was compulsory and exempt from docket fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views1 page

    Alday V FGU Insurance

    Uploaded by

    Rean Raphaelle Gonzales
    Alday v FGU Insurance involved a collection suit filed by FGU Insurance against their agent Alday. Alday filed a counterclaim demanding sums owed and damages. FGU filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim due to non-payment of docket fees. The court had to determine if the counterclaim was compulsory or permissive, and when a counterclaim is exempt from docket fees. The court ruled that the counterclaim for recovery of sums was permissive and required docket fees, but the counterclaim for damages was compulsory and exempt from docket fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1.

    Alday v FGU Insurance


    FACTS: FGU filed a collection suit against its agent, Alday. She answered and by way of
    counterclaim, demanded certain sums as well & damages as a result of FGU’s
    allegations. FGU filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim due to non-payment of
    docket fees. Alday asked the court to declare her from the payment of docket fees since
    the counterclaim was compulsory. The RTC denied the exemption and declared the
    counterclaim to be permissive. The CA upheld the RTC.
    FIRST RELEVANT ISSUE: Is the counterclaim compulsory or permissive? – recovery:
    permissive; damages: compulsory
    SECOND RELEVANT ISSUE: When shall a counterclaim be exempt from payment of
    docket fees? – WHEN IT IS COMPULSORY
    RULING ON FIRST RELEVANT ISSUE: The evidence required to prove petitioner's claim
    differed from that needed to establish respondent's demands for the recovery of cash
    accountabilities from petitioner, such as cash advances and costs of premium. Thus, the
    counterclaim for recovery of sum is permissive. The counterclaim, for damages however
    would be that If respondent will not answer the compulsory counterclaim of petitioner,
    it would merely result in the former pleading the same facts, thus making it compulsory.
    RULING ON SECOND RELEVANT ISSUE: The evidence required to prove petitioner's
    claims differs from that needed to establish respondent's demands for the recovery of
    cash accountabilities from petitioner, such as cash advances and costs of premiums, and
    as such permissive counterclaims require the proper payment of docket fees. On the
    other hand, the compulsory counterclaim for damages are compulsory and need no
    payment of docket fees.

    You might also like