Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

	GR No. 177210 2009-04-07	SUMMA KUMAGAI v. ROMAGO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court takes note that permissive counterclaims are considered as separate actions in themselves,[17] and may be severed from the action on the Complaint. In the case at bar, the counterclaims of SK-KG rest on different provisions of the contract, and relate to amounts/obligations separate and distinct from those being claimed by SK-KG in its Complaint. The evidence required for SK-KG to prove its claims is different from that needed to establish the demands of Romago in its Complaint; thus, the counterclaim of SK-KG is merely permissive[18] and, consequently, may be severed from the main action.