rules on joinder of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of

Rules on joinder of parties pursuant to section 5 of

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 22 pages.

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 respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction ANOTHER DIGEST Facts : 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 the amount of P11,643.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner on various occasions from August to October, 1981; -second cause of action was against respondent Fernando Calion for allegedly refusing to pay the amount ofP10,212.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner on several occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982.The action was opposed by an action to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Under Sec 19 of BP 129, the regional trial court had exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more than P20,000. That although, the other respondent was indebted in the amount of P10, 212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct from that of the other respondent.The trial court by Judge Mallare (one of the respondents) dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.Plaintiff appealed by certiorari in Supreme Court. Issue: WON the trial court correctly ruled on the application of the permissive joinder of parties under the Rules of Court.
Image of page 5
Ruling: 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. In the case at bar, 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 respondents Binongcal 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 of the 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 any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture