REMEGIO V. FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUDGE HEILIA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS, IGNACIO BINONGCAL & FERNANDO CALION, RESPONDENTS.

Flores versus Mallare-Phillipps

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Remegio Flores against Judge Heilia S. Mallare-Phillipps of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province, together with Ignacio Binongcal and Fernando Calion. Flores sued two men in one complaint to collect two separate debts for truck tires bought on credit, and the trial court dismissed the whole complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest statement that the totality rule — the rule that jurisdiction is measured by the sum of all claims in a complaint — does not operate by itself. It is subject to the rules on permissive joinder of parties, and where the claims are separate and distinct and cannot be joined, each claim furnishes its own jurisdictional test.

Procedural History

Flores filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province against Ignacio Binongcal and Fernando Calion. Binongcal moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, since the demand against him was only 11,643 pesos, below the regional trial court's jurisdictional threshold. At the hearing, Calion joined the motion, and Flores opposed it. The trial court, through Judge Mallare-Phillipps, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there was a misjoinder of parties because the claims against the two respondents were separate and distinct and neither fell within its jurisdiction. Flores then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari. He did not attach a copy of his complaint, mistakenly believing that the entire original record would be transmitted under the second paragraph of Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129; the Court noted that this provision applies only to ordinary appeals from the regional trial court to the Court of Appeals, while appeals to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari are governed by Rule 45. The Court nevertheless resolved the case on the merits, drawing the facts from the order appealed from.

Facts

From August to October 1981, Ignacio Binongcal purchased truck tires on credit from Remegio Flores on various occasions, and allegedly refused to pay the cost of 11,643 pesos. Separately, from March 1981 to January 1982, Fernando Calion purchased truck tires on credit from Flores on several occasions, and allegedly refused to pay the cost of 10,212 pesos.

Flores embodied both claims in a single complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province. On December 15, 1983, counsel for Binongcal filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, since the demand against Binongcal was only 11,643 pesos, while under Section 19(8) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 the regional trial court has exclusive original jurisdiction only where the amount of the demand is more than 20,000 pesos. The motion added that although Calion was allegedly indebted to Flores in the amount of 10,212 pesos, his obligation was separate and distinct from that of Binongcal.

At the hearing, counsel for Calion joined in moving for dismissal on the same ground, and counsel for Flores opposed. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Flores argued before the Supreme Court that the lower court had jurisdiction under what he called the novel totality rule, since the two claims together exceeded 20,000 pesos.

Issues

• Whether or not the totality rule, under which the amount of the demand is the sum of all claims in all the causes of action, applies to a single complaint joining separate claims against two different defendants.
• Whether or not the totality rule is subject to the requirements for permissive joinder of parties under Section 6 of Rule 3.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground of misjoinder of parties.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, on permissive joinder of parties, provides:

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.

This is the provision that limits the totality rule: claims against several defendants may be joined in one complaint only if they arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and a common question of law or fact exists.

Section 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as quoted in the decision, provides in its pertinent portion:

Provided, That 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.

This is the totality rule invoked by Flores, which the Court reads as qualified by the rules on joinder of parties.

Section 11 of the Interim Rules, on the application of the totality rule, provides:

Application of the totality rule. - In actions where the jurisdiction of the court is dependent on the amount involved, the test of jurisdiction shall be the aggregate sum of all the money demands, exclusive only of interest and costs, irrespective of whether or not the separate claims are owned by or due to different parties. If any demand is for damages in a civil action, the amount thereof must be specifically alleged.

This provision states the aggregate test that the Court applies only where the parties are properly joined.

Section 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, the former rule, provided in its pertinent portion:

Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same parties embodied in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the demand in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; but where the claims or causes of action joined in a single complaint are separately owned by or due to different parties, each separate claim shall furnish the jurisdictional test.

The Court compares this old rule with the present one to show that the deletion of the proviso changed the treatment of joined parties, but not the requirement of a proper joinder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Flores is partly correct. Where a plaintiff sues a defendant on two or more separate causes of action, there is no difference between the former and present rules: the amount of the demand is the totality of the claims in all the causes of action, whether or not they arose out of the same or different transactions, and if the total exceeds 20,000 pesos the regional trial court has jurisdiction. But where the causes of action are separate and independent, their joinder is permissive and not mandatory, and any cause of action involving 20,000 pesos or less may be filed separately in a metropolitan or municipal trial court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the totality rule is subject to Section 6 of Rule 3. Under the present law, the totality rule applies to cases where two or more plaintiffs with separate causes of action against a defendant join in one complaint, and to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or more defendants joined in one complaint. However, the causes of action must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and there must be a common question of law or fact. The Court explained that under the former rule, where claims joined in a single complaint were separately owned by or due to different parties, each separate claim furnished the jurisdictional test, as held in the case of Vda. de Rosario versus Justice of the Peace, and applied to defendants as well in Brillo versus Buklatan. Under the present law, the two old illustrations — the twenty-nine dismissed employees in Soriano y Cia versus Jose and the twenty-five dismissed teachers in International Colleges versus Argonza — would now fall under the regional trial court, because the total of all claims furnishes the jurisdictional test in cases of permissive joinder. If, instead of joining, separate actions are filed, the amount demanded in each complaint furnishes the jurisdictional test.

On the third issue, the Court held that the lower court correctly ruled that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder of parties under Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3, and that a careful scrutiny of the complaint shows a misjoinder of parties, because the claims against Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither falls within the trial court's jurisdiction.

Doctrine

The totality rule is not self-executing. In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants, the total of all claims furnishes the jurisdictional test, but only where the requirements of Section 6 of Rule 3 are satisfied: the claims must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, and a common question of law or fact must exist. Where the claims are separate and distinct and there is a misjoinder of parties, each claim furnishes its own jurisdictional test. Where separate actions are filed instead of a joint complaint, the amount demanded in each complaint controls jurisdiction. A candidate should tie this rule directly to the quoted text of Section 6 of Rule 3 and to the totality rule in Section 33(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 11 of the Interim Rules.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, without pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the totality rule applies only where the parties are properly joined under Section 6 of Rule 3, and where the claims are separate and distinct, each claim furnishes the jurisdictional test. Examiners use this case to test whether a student knows that aggregating claims cannot cure a misjoinder of parties in order to confer jurisdiction on the regional trial court.