2. Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc..pdf

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 5 pages.

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Company, Inc. G.R. No. 140746. March 16, 2005. * PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., and ALEXANDER BUNCAN, petitioners, vs . STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and MARTINA GICALE, respondents. Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Parties; Permissive Joinder of Parties; Requisites; Where there is a single transaction common to both plaintiffs, they have the same cause of action against the defendants .—Permissive joinder of parties requires that: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions; (b) there is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and (c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and venue. In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantranco’s bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney. There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether petitioners are negligent. There being a single transaction common to both respondents, consequently, they have the same cause of action against petitioners. Same; Same; Same; To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same evidence which is necessary to _______________ * THIRD DIVISION. 483 VOL. 453, MARCH 16, 2005 483 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Company, Inc. sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first .—To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first. Here, had respondents filed separate suits against petitioners, the same evidence would have been presented to sustain the same cause of action. Thus, the filing by both respondents of the complaint with the court below is in order. Such joinder of parties avoids multiplicity of suit and ensures the convenient, speedy and orderly administration of justice. Same; Same; Same; Jurisdictions; “Totality Rule”; Under the “totality rule” “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 5(d), Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: “Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action .—A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions: x x x (d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.” The above provision presupposes that the different causes of action which are joined accrue in favor of the same plaintiff/s and against the same defendant/s and that no misjoinder of parties is involved. The
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 5 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Complaint, Pleading, Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture