Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc V Pyramid Logistics and Trucking Corporation
Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc V Pyramid Logistics and Trucking Corporation
Whether Pyramid which filed a complaint, denominated as one ISAC filed an action against petitioners to recover the sum of money.
for specific performance and damages, against petitioners RTC ISAC impleaded the BOC "as a necessary party plaintiff in order that
paid the correct docket fee? the reward of money or judgment shall be adjudged unto the said
If in the negative, whether the complaint should be dismissed or necessary plaintiff.
Pyramid can still be ordered to pay the fee? Issue: Whether or not BOC was improperly impleaded by ISAC.
Ruling: Pyramid failed to pay the correct docket fees, they are Ruling: No. BOC is a necessary party in the case at bar, and should
ordered to pay the correct fees within a reasonable time. not be dropped as a party to the present case.
Ratio: Ratio:
As will be noted, the requirement in Circular No. 7 that
complaints, petitions, answers, and similar pleadings should The misjoinder of parties does not warrant the dismissal of the
specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the action. Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court explicitly states:
body of the pleading but also in the prayer, has not been altered. SEC. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.—Neither
What has been revised is the rule that subsequent “amendment misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added
jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own
based on the amount sought in the amended pleading,” the trial initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as
court now being authorized to allow payment of the fee within are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be
a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable severed and proceeded with separately.
prescriptive period or reglementary period. Consequently, the purported misjoinder of the BOC as a party
Moreover, a new rule has been added, governing the awards of cannot result in the dismissal of the case.
claims not specified in the pleading – i.e., damages arising after
the filing of the complaint or similar pleading – as to which the A necessary party is defined in Section 8, Rule 3 of the Rules of
additional filing fee therefore shall constitute a lien on the Court as follows:
judgment SEC. 8. Necessary party.—A necessary party is one who
Two situations may arise. One is where the complaint or similar is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party
pleading sets out a claim purely for money and damages and if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already
there is no statement of the amounts being claimed. In this event parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of
the rule is that the pleading will “not be accepted nor admitted, or the claim subject of the action.
shall otherwise be expunged from the record.” In other words,
the complaint or pleading may be dismissed, or the claims as to The subject matter of the case is the liability of Autocorp Group
which amounts are unspecified may be expunged, although as to the BOC, which ISAC is also bound to pay as the guarantor
aforestated the Court may, on motion, permit amendment of the who issued the bonds therefor. Clearly, there would be no
complaint and payment of the fees provided the claim has not in complete settlement of the subject matter of the case at bar – the
the meantime become time-barred. liability of Autocorp Group to the BOC – should Autocorp Group
The other is where the pleading does specify the amount of be merely ordered to pay its obligations with the BOC to ISAC.
every claim, but the fees paid are insufficient; and here again, the BOC is, therefore, a necessary party in the case at bar, and
rule now is that the court may allow a reasonable time for the should not be dropped as a party to the present case.
payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon
such payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly It can only be conceded that there was an irregularity in the
take cognizance of the action, unless in the meantime manner the BOC was joined as a necessary party in the case. As
prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of the BOC, through the Solicitor General, was not the one who
action. initiated the case, and neither was its consent obtained for the
filing of the same, it may be considered an unwilling co-plaintiff of
ISAC in said action. The proper way to implead the BOC as a
necessary party to Civil Case No. 95-1584 should have been in
accordance with Section 10, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, viz:
SEC. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff.— If the consent of any
party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained,
he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall
be stated in the complaint.