Thus the mortgage contract which embodies the terms

Thus, the mortgage contract which embodies the terms and conditions of the loan
obligation of respondent spouses, as well as respondent Celebrada Mangubat's
admission in open court, are more than adequate evidence to sustain petitioner's claim
for payment of private respondents' aforestated indebtedness and for the adjudication
of DBP's claim therefor in the very same action now before us.It is also worth noting
that the adjustment and allowance of petitioner's demand by counterclaim or set-off in
the present action, rather than by another independent action, is favored or
encouraged by law. Such a practice serves to avoid circuitry of action, multiplicity of
suits, inconvenience, expense, and unwarranted consumption of the time of the court.
The trend of judicial decisions is toward a liberal extension of the right to avail of
counterclaims or set-offs.The rules on counterclaim are designed to achieve the
disposition of a whole controversy of the conflicting claims of interested parties at one
time and in one action, provided all parties can be brought before the court and the
matter decided without prejudicing the rights of any party.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED, by deleting the award
of P11,980.00 as reimbursement for taxes and expenses for the relocation survey, and
ordering respondent spouses Celebrada and Abner Mangubat to pay petitioner
Development Bank of the Philippines the amount of P118,540.00, representing the total
amount of the loan released to them, with interest of 15% per annum plus charges and
other expenses in accordance with their mortgage contract. In all other respects, the
said judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
14. LUFTHANZA GERMAN AIRLINES VS. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: On 16 May 1985, plaintiff-appellee (Don Ferry) purchased from the defendant-
appellant a San Francisco/ New York/ Paris/ Frankfurt/Manila first class open dated
ticket. There was no carrier indicated for the San Francisco/New York/Paris portions of
the journey. On June 3, 1985, plaintiff-appellee went to Lufthansa's San Francisco office
allegedly to get Lufthansa to endorse the San Francisco/New York portion of his journey
to Trans World Airlines. But, there was no need to secure said endorsement since no
carrier was indicated in the ticket for the San Francisco/New York leg of the journey.
Instead of going to TWA as advised, plaintiff requested Mrs. Egger for a different routing
which omitted the New York/Paris leg of his original itinerary. Said new routing would
require the endorsement of the ticket. Hence, Mrs. Egger advised the plaintiff-appellee
that she would need to get an authorization from Lufthansa's Manila office in order to
endorse plaintiff-appellee's ticket, She also explained to plaintiff-appellee the procedure
for obtaining the authorization and the reason why it was required. Upon being advised
that securing the necessary authorization could possibly take a day or more, plaintiff-
appellee advised Mrs. Egger that he could not wait. Thereafter. plaintiff-appellee settled