(Rule 2, Sec. 5) REMEDIO V.

FLORES
vs.
HON. JUDGE HEILIA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS
G.R. No. L-66620 September 24, 1986

Facts: Petitioner has appealed by certiorari from the order of Judge Mallare-Phillipps
of the RTC of Baguio City and Benguet Province which dismissed his complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. The order appealed from, states that the first cause of action
alleged in the complaint was against respondent Ignacion Binongcal for refusing to pay
the amount of P11,643.00 representing the cost of truck tires which he purchased on
credit from petition on various occasions; and the second cause of action was against
respondent Fernando Calion for allegedly refusing to pay the amount of P10,212.00
representing the cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner on
various occasions.The counsel for respondent Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the amount of the demand against said
respondent is less than P20,000.00 which is the jurisdictional amount in order for RTC
to exercise original jurisdiction of the case under section 19(8) of BP 129. It was further
averred in said motion that although another person, Calion, was allegedly indebted to
petitioner in the amount of P10,212.00, his obligation was separate and distinct from
that of the other respondent. At the hearing, counsel for respondent Calion joined in
moving for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The trial
court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue: Whether or not 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, 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 or be 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 may make such orders as may be just to prevent
any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with
any proceedings in which he may have no interest.