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

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