Flores v. Mallare-Philipps

nature

Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45.

FACTS

Flores sued the resps for the collection of sum of money with the RTC

The first cause of action alleged in the complaint was against Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay the amount of P11,643 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from Flores on various occasions from August to October, 1981;

The second cause of action was against resp Fernando Calion for allegedly refusing to pay the amount of P10,212 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from pet on several occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982.

Binongcal filed a MTD on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the amount of the demand against said resp was only P11,643.00, and under Section 19(8) of BP129 the RTC shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more than P20K.

Although another person, Fernando Calion, was allegedly indebted to pet in the amount of P10,212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct from that of the other resp. Calion joined in moving for the dismissal of the complaint.

RTC dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

WON the trial court correctly ruled on the application of the permissive joinder of parties 

ruling

The lower court has jurisdiction over the case following the "novel" totality rule introduced in Section 33(l) of BP129 and Section 11 of the Interim Rules.

Section 33(l) of BP129

That where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions. ...

Section 11 of the Interim Rules

Application of the totality rule. In actions where the jurisdiction of the court is dependent on the amount involved, the test of jurisdiction shall be the aggregate sum of all the money demands, exclusive only of interest and costs, irrespective of WON the separate claims are owned by or due to different parties. If any demand is for damages in a civil action, the amount thereof must be specifically alleged.

former rule under Section 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948  

Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same parties embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the demand in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; but where the claims or causes of action joined in a single complaint are separately owned by or due to different parties, each separate claim shall furnish the jurisdictional test. ...

comparison of former and present rules

	Present Rules	Former Rules
Where a plaintiff sues a defendant on two or more separate causes of action	Totality of the claims in all the causes of action irrespective of whether the COA arose out of the same or diff transactions. If the total demand exceeds P20K – RTC has jurisdiction If the causes of action are separate and independent, their joinder in one complaint is permissive and not mandatory, and any cause of action where the amount of the demand is 20K or less may be the subject of a separate complaint filed with a metropolitan or MTC.	Totality of the claims in all the causes of action irrespective of whether the COA arose out of the same or diff transactions. If the total demand exceeds P20K – RTC has jurisdiction If the causes of action are separate and independent, their joinder in one complaint is permissive and not mandatory, and any cause of action where the amount of the demand is 20K or less may be the subject of a separate complaint filed with a metropolitan or MTC.
Two or more plaintiffs having a separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single complaint	Where the claims or causes of action joined in a single complaint are separately owned by or due to different parties, each separate claim shall furnish the jurisdictional test The former rule applied only to cases of permissive joinder of parties plaintiff. However, it was also applicable to cases of permissive joinder of parties defendant.	The causes of action in favor of the two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common question of law or fact, as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.

Brillo vs. Buklatan (former rule):

Separate claims against several defendants of different amounts each of which is not more than P2,000 and falls under the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court. The several claims do not arise from the same transaction or series of transactions and there seem to be no questions of law or of fact common to all the defendants as may warrant their joinder under Rule 3, section 6.  

The difference between the former and present rules in cases of permissive joinder of parties may be illustrated by the two cases which were cited in the case of Vda. de Rosario vs. Justice of the Peace as exceptions to the totality rule.

·          Soriano y Cia vs. Jose 29 dismissed employees joined in a complaint against the defendant to collect their respective claims, each of which was within the jurisdiction of the municipal court although the total exceeded the jurisdictional amount, this Court held that under the law then the municipal court had jurisdiction. Although the plaintiffs' demands were separate, distinct and independent of one another, their joint suit was authorized under Section 6 of Rule 3 and each separate claim furnished the jurisdictional test.

·          International Colleges, Inc. vs. Argonza, 25 dismissed teachers jointly sued for unpaid salaries, the MC had jurisdiction because the amount of each claim was within, although the total exceeded, its jurisdiction and it was a case of permissive joinder of parties plaintiff under Section 6 of Rule 3.

Under the present law, the two cases would be under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Similarly, Brillo vs. Buklatan and Gacula vs. Martinez, if the separate claims against the several defendants arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there is a common question of law or fact, they would now be under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, the total of all the claims shall now furnish the jurisdictional test. Needless to state also, if instead of joining or being joined in one complaint separate actions are filed by or against the parties, the amount demanded in each complaint shall furnish the jurisdictional test.

The lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after a careful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against resps Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction.