Practice question
A counterclaim needs no new summons against the already-submitting original plaintiff. Its proponent says that this procedural fact conclusively proves the plaintiff owes the alleged debt. Which is sound?
- Personal jurisdiction necessarily proves every counterclaim allegation.
- Absence of a need for new summons does not establish substantive liability.
- Filing a complaint admits every future adverse claim.
- The counterclaim requires no legal or factual basis.
- The clerk must immediately execute any amount requested.
Legal references
- 2019 Amendments to Civil Procedure, Rule 14, particularly Sections 1-5, 8, 13 and 23, as applicable to the stated issue: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html
- Francisco Motors Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100812, June 25, 1999, main decision, original plaintiff and counterclaim summons; no historical answer period relied on: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jun1999/gr_100812_1999.html
- Lafarge Cement Philippines, Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp., G.R. No. 155173, November 23, 2004, main decision, summons on newly impleaded counterclaim defendants: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_155173_2004.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.