50%(4)2 out of 4 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 372 - 373 out of 480 pages.
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 APPEALSFACTS: 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