Calo vs Ajax Digest

CALO V. AJAX INTERNATIONAL 22 SCRA 996 (1968) FACTS: FACTS: Plaintiff Calo ordered from defendant Ajax International 1,200 ft of John Shaw wire rope evidenced by Chare !rder no "#0#1 for P",$20 1% Plaintiff Plaintiff alleed alleed that when when the &aid &aid rope rope wa& deliver delivered, ed, it wa& "00 ft &hort% &hort% Plaintif Plaintifff then wrot wrotee a lett letter er a&'i a&'in n for for compl complet etee deli delive very ry or acco acco(nt (nt adj( adj(&t &tme ment nt of the the alle allee ed d (ndelivered wire rope 2% Inci Incide dent ntal ally ly,, Adolfo dolfo )enav )enavid ide& e& ac*( ac*(ir ired ed the the o(t& o(t&ta tandi ndin n cred credit it of Calo Calo from from Ajax Ajax%% )enavide& filed a complaint aain&t Calo before +C +anila% A j(dment by defa(lt wa& entered and a writ of exec(tion wa& i&&(ed aain&t Calo% he ca&e wa& later remanded for  f(rther proceedin& "% In t(rn, Calo Calo filed before before C-I A(&an A(&an a complaint complaint aain&t aain&t Ajax Ajax a&'in a&'in for either either complete complete delivery of chare order no "#0#1 of that &he be relieved from payin P.// $% In&tead In&tead of filin filin an an&wer, an&wer, Ajax Ajax moved for the the di&mi&&al di&mi&&al of the the ca&e on the ro(nd ro(nd that the &(bject matter involved wa& related to a pendin ca&e filed in +anila by )enavide&% he trial co(rt &(&tained the motion and di&mi&&ed the ca&e% Plaintiff filed + denied% /% The dismissa !" #he $ase i% CFI A&'sa% as *emised !% #he #he!*+ #ha# #he e#i#i!%e*,s $aim is a $!m's!*+ $!'%#e*$aim #! #he $ase "ied -e"!*e TC a%ia

co mp(l&ory co(nter5claim SS/E: 3!4 the ca&e filed in C-I A(&an i& a comp(l&ory 0EL::  4o, #he ai%#i"",s $aim is %!# a $!m's!*+ $!'%#e*$aim "!* #he sime *eas!% 0EL #ha# #he am!'%# #he*e!" #he*e!" e$eeds #he 3'*isdi$#i!% !" #he m'%i$ia #*ia $!'*#. The *'e #ha# a $!m's!*+ $!'%#e*$aim %!# se# ' is -a**ed4 he% aied #! #he m'%i$ia $!'*#4 *es'!ses #ha# #he am!'%# is i#hi% #he said $!'*#,s 3'*isdi$#i!% % !therwi&e, it wo(ld re&(lt to an ab&(rd &it(ation where a claim m(&t be filed within the +C which i& prohibited from ta'in coni6ance of, bein beyond it& j(ri&diction%

)e&ide&, the rea&on (nderlyin the r(le, which i& to &ettle all related controver&ie& in one &ittin only, i& i& not obtained% 7ven if the co(nterclaim in exce&& of the amo(nt coni6able by the inferior  co(rt i& &et (p, the defendant cannot obtain po&itive relief% he r(le& allow thi& only for the defendant defendant to prevent prevent plaintif plaintifff from recoverin recoverin from him% hi& mean& that &ho(ld the co(rt find  both plaintiff8& complaint and the defendant8& co(nterclaim for an amo(nt exceedin &aid co(rt8& j(ri&diction meritorio(&, it will &imply di&mi&& the complaint on the ro(nd that the defendant ha& a bier credit% Since the defendant &till ha& to in&tit(te a &eparate action for the remainin balance of hi& co(nterclaim, the previo(& litiation did not really &ettle all related controver&ie&% Plaintiff Calo9& claim of P12,000%00 not bein a comp(l&ory co(nterclaim in Civil Ca&e 4o% :I5 ;"0 if there had  been any tamperin, it wa& committed by SIA8& per&onnel #% +anila C br5"0 held in favor of ayo& and ordered the defendant& to pay ayo&% !n the third5party complaint, the third5party defendant PA= wa& ordered to pay SIA whatever  it ha& paid ayo& .% In it& appeal, PA= claimed that ayo& had no valid claim aain&t SIA beca(&e it wa& the inefficiency of ayo& which led to the non5renewal of hi& contract with Aramco, and not the alleed tamperin of hi& exce&& baae tic'et% SIA ar(ed that the only i&&(e in the &aid appeal i& whether or not it wa& entitled to reimb(r&ement from PA= p(r&(ant to the ca&e of -ire&tone v% empon'o ;% CA di&areed with SIA8& contention and opined that SIA8& an&wer to the complaint &ho(ld in(re to the benefit of PA=, and the latter may challene the lower co(rt8& findin& aain&t SIA for the p(rpo&e of defeatin SIA8& claim aain&t PA= and not for alterin the exec(ted j(dment aain&t SIA 10% SIA ar(ed that PA= cannot validly a&&ail for the fir&t time on appeal the trial co(rt8& deci&ion &(&tainin the validity of ayo&8 complaint aain&t SIA if P=A did not rai&e thi& i&&(e in the lower co(rt ISS/E: 3!4 SIA co(ld validly claim reimb(r&ement from PA= a& the third5party defendant for  the damae& it paid in favor of ayo& 0EL: ?e&% The #hi*da*#+ $!mai%# is a *!$ed'*a dei$e he*e-+ a D#hi*d a*#+D h! is %ei#he* a a*#+ %!* *i+ #! #he a$# !* deed $!mai%ed !" -+ #he ai%#i""4 ma+ -e -*!'&h# i%#! #he

$ase i#h eae !" $!'*#4 -+ #he de"e%da%#4 h! a$#s as #hi*da*#+ ai%#i"" #! e%"!*$e a&ai%s# s'$h #hi*da*#+ de"e%da%# a *i&h# "!* $!%#*i-'#i!%4 i%dem%i#+4 s'-*!&a#i!% !* a%+ !#he* *eie"4 i% *ese$# !" #he ai%#i""s $aim. The #hi*da*#+ $!mai%# is a$#'a+ i%dee%de%# !" a%d sea*a#e a%d dis#i%$# "*!m #he ai%#i""s $!mai%# D3hen leave to file the third5party complaint i& properly ranted, the Co(rt render& in effect two j(dment& in the &ame ca&e, one on the plaintiff9& complaint and the other on the third5party complaint% 3hen he find& favorably on both complaint&, a& in thi& ca&e, he render& j(dment on the principal complaint in favor of plaintiff aain&t defendant and render& another j(dment on the third5party complaint in favor of defendant a& third5party plaintiff, orderin the third5party defendant to reimb(r&e the defendant whatever amo(nt &aid de fendant i& ordered to pay plaintiff in the ca&e%

3hile the third5party defendant wo(ld benefit from a victory by the third5party plaintiff aain&t the plaintiff, thi& i& tr(e only when the third5party plaintiff and third5party defendant have non5 contradictory defen&e&% Bere, the defendant and third5party defendant had no common defen&e aain&t the plaintiff&9 complaint, and they were even blamin ea ch other for the fia&co% he trial co(rt9& deci&ion, altho(h adver&e to SIA a& defendant, made PA= (ltimately an&werable for the j(dment by orderin the latter to reimb(r&e the former for the entire monetary award% !n appeal, PA= tried to exonerate it&elf by ar(in that the ayo& had no valid claim aain&t SIA% -rom PA=9& viewpoint, thi& &eemed to be the only way to extricate it&elf from a me&& which the co(rt a quo a&cribed to it% hi& cannot, however, be allowed beca(&e it wa& neither rai&ed by SIA in it& an&wer to the main complaint nor by PA= in it& an&wer to the third5  party complaint% he pr(dent thin that PA= &ho(ld have done wa& to &tate in it& an&wer to the third5party complaint filed by SIA aain&t it everythin that it may conceivably interpo&e by way of it& defen&e, incl(din &pecific denial& of alleation& in the main complaint which implicated it alon with SIA% Bowever, PA= i& not &olely liable for the &ati&faction of the j(dment in favor of ayo&% he immediate ca(&e of &(ch non5renewal wa& SIA9& delayed tran&mittal of the certification needed  by ayo& to prove hi& innocence to hi& employer% he effect of SIA9& mi&handlin of )eatri6 ayo&9 re*(e&t became in&tantly apparent when her h(&band9& contract wa& not renewed in &pite of hi& performance which wa& con&tantly Ehihly reardedE by the manaer of Aramco9& e*(ipment &ervice& department% he non5renewal of ayo& employment contract wa& the nat(ral and probable con&e*(ence of  the &eparate tortio(& act& of SIA and PA=% Fnder mandate of Art 21#< 4CC, ayo& i& entitled to  be compen&ated for &(ch damae&% Ina&m(ch a& the re&pon&ibility of two or more per&on&, or  tort5fea&or&, liable for a *(a&i5delict i& joint and &everal, and the &harin a& between &(ch &olidary debtor& i& pro5rata, it i& b(t loical, fair, and e*(itable to re*(ire PA= to contrib(te to the amo(nt awarded to the ayo& &po(&e& and already paid by SIA, in&tead of totally indemnifyin the latter% IS5OSITIVE: CA deci&ion i& rever&ed and a new one i& entered orderin PA= to pay by way of contrib(tion, petitioner SIA 1G2 of the amo(nt it act(ally paid to ayo&%