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, aftera careful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claimsagainst respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdictionANOTHER DIGESTFacts: Flores sued the respondents for refusing to pay him certain amount of money as alleged in the complaint:-first cause of action alleged in the complaint was against respondent Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay theamount of P11,643.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner on variousoccasions from August to October, 1981; -second cause of action was against respondent Fernando Calion forallegedly refusing to pay the amount ofP10,212.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit frompetitioner on several occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982.The action was opposed by an action to dismissfor lack of jurisdiction. Under Sec 19 of BP 129, the regional trial court had exclusive original jurisdiction if theamount of the demand is more than P20,000. That although, the other respondent was indebted in the amount ofP10, 212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct from that of the other respondent.The trial court by JudgeMallare (one of the respondents) dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.Plaintiff appealed by certiorari inSupreme Court.Issue:WON the trial court correctly ruled on the application of the permissive joinder of parties under the Rules of Court.
Ruling:In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, thetotal of all the claims shall now furnish the jurisdictional test. Needless to state also, if instead of joining or beingjoined in onecomplaint separate actions are filed by or against the parties, the amount demanded in each complaint shall furnishthe jurisdictional test. In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder of partiespursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after a careful scrutiny of thecomplaint, it appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against respondentsBinongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction. Section 6 of Rule 3 which provides as follows: Permissive joinder of parties.-All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out ofthe same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may,except as otherwise provided in these rules, join as plaintiffs orbe joined as defendants in one complaint, where anyquestion of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court