G.R. No. L-66620 September 24, 1986 P10,212.

P10,212.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner
on several occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982.
REMEDIO V. FLORES, petitioner,
vs. On December 15, 1983, counsel for respondent Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss on
HON. JUDGE HEILIA S. MALLARE-PHILLIPPS, IGNACIO BINONGCAL & FERNANDO the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the amount of the demand against said
CALION, respondents. respondent was only P11,643.00, and under Section 19(8) of BP129 the regional trial
court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more
Lucio A. Dixon for respondent F. Calion. than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). It was further averred in said motion that
although another person, Fernando 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 of said Motion to Dismiss, counsel for respondent Calion
joined in moving for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
FERIA, J.: Counsel for petitioner opposed the Motion to Dismiss. As above stated, the trial court
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court rules that the application of the totality rule under Section 33(l) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 11 of the Interim Rules is subject to the requirements for Petitioner maintains that the lower court has jurisdiction over the case following the
the permissive joinder of parties under Section 6 of Rule 3 which provides as follows: "novel" totality rule introduced in Section 33(l) of BP129 and Section 11 of the Interim
Rules.
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 The pertinent portion of Section 33(l) of BP129 reads as follows:
or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally,
or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these
... Provided,That where there are several claims or causes of action
rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint,
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same
where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to
complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the
all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make
claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes
such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from
of action arose out of the same or different transactions. ...
being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest.
Section 11 of the Interim Rules provides thus:
Petitioner has appealed by certiorari from the order of Judge Heilia S. Mallare-Phillipps
of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province which dismissed his Application of the totality rule.-In actions where the jurisdiction of
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner did not attach to his petition a copy of his the court is dependent on the amount involved, the test of
complaint in the erroneous belief that the entire original record of the case shall be jurisdiction shall be the aggregate sum of all the money demands,
transmitted to this Court pursuant to the second paragraph of Section 39 of BP129. This exclusive only of interest and costs, irrespective of whether or not the
provision applies only to ordinary appeals from the regional trial court to the Court of separate claims are owned by or due to different parties. If any
Appeals (Section 20 of the Interim Rules). Appeals to this Court by petition for review on demand is for damages in a civil action, the amount thereof must be
certiorari are governed by Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Section 25 of the Interim specifically alleged.
Rules).
Petitioner compares the above-quoted provisions with the pertinent portion of the
However, the order appealed from states that the first cause of action alleged in the former rule under Section 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 as amended which reads as
complaint was against respondent Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay the amount of follows:
P11,643.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner
on various occasions from August to October, 1981; and the second cause of action was ... Where there are several claims or causes of action between the
against respondent Fernando Calion for allegedly refusing to pay the amount of 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, Under the present law, the totality rule is applied also to cases where two or more
irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join in a single complaint,
different transactions; but where the claims or causes of action joined as well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes of action against two or more
in a single complaint are separately owned by or due to different defendants joined in a single complaint. However, the causes of action in favor of the
parties, each separate claim shall furnish the jurisdictional test. ... two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should arise out of the
same transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common question of
and argues that with the deletion of the proviso in the former rule, the totality rule was law or fact, as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.
reduced to clarity and brevity and the jurisdictional test is the totality of the claims in all,
not in each, of the causes of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose The difference between the former and present rules in cases of permissive joinder of
out of the same or different transactions. parties may be illustrated by the two cases which were cited in the case of Vda. de
Rosario vs. Justice of the Peace (supra) as exceptions to the totality rule. In the case of
This argument is partly correct. There is no difference between the former and present Soriano y Cia vs. Jose (86 Phil. 523), where twenty-nine dismissed employees joined in a
rules in cases where a plaintiff sues a defendant on two or more separate causes of complaint against the defendant to collect their respective claims, each of which was
action. In such cases, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all within the jurisdiction of the municipal court although the total exceeded the
the causes of action irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same jurisdictional amount, this Court held that under the law then the municipal court had
or different transactions. If the total demand exceeds twenty thousand pesos, then the jurisdiction. In said case, although the plaintiffs' demands were separate, distinct and
regional trial court has jurisdiction. Needless to state, if the causes of action are independent of one another, their joint suit was authorized under Section 6 of Rule 3
separate and independent, their joinder in one complaint is permissive and not and each separate claim furnished the jurisdictional test. In the case of International
mandatory, and any cause of action where the amount of the demand is twenty Colleges, Inc. vs. Argonza (90 Phil. 470), where twenty-five dismissed teachers jointly
thousand pesos or less may be the subject of a separate complaint filed with a sued the defendant for unpaid salaries, this Court also held that the municipal court had
metropolitan or municipal trial court. jurisdiction because the amount of each claim was within, although the total exceeded,
its jurisdiction and it was a case of permissive joinder of parties plaintiff under Section 6
of Rule 3.
On the other hand, there is a difference between the former and present rules in cases
where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a defendant join
in a single complaint. Under the former rule, "where the claims or causes of action Under the present law, the two cases above cited (assuming they do not fall under the
joined in a single complaint are separately owned by or due to different parties, each Labor Code) would be under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court. Similarly, in the
separate claim shall furnish the jurisdictional test" (Section 88 of the Judiciary Act of abovecited cases of Brillo vs. Buklatan and Gacula vs. Martinez (supra), if the separate
1948 as amended,  supra). This was based on the ruling in the case of Vda. de Rosario vs. claims against the several defendants arose out of the same transaction or series of
Justice of the Peace, 99 Phil. 693. As worded, the former rule applied only to cases of transactions and there is a common question of law or fact, they would now be under
permissive joinder of parties plaintiff. However, it was also applicable to cases of the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.
permissive joinder of parties defendant, as may be deduced from the ruling in the case
of  Brillo vs. Buklatan, thus: In other words, 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
Furthermore, the first cause of action is composed of separate claims jurisdictional test. Needless to state also, if instead of joining or being joined in one
against several defendants of different amounts each of which is not complaint separate actions are filed by or against the parties, the amount demanded in
more than P2,000 and falls under the jurisdiction of the justice of the each complaint shall furnish the jurisdictional test.
peace court under section 88 of Republic Act No, 296. The several
claims do not seem to arise from the same transaction or series of In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is subject to
transactions and there seem to be no questions of law or of fact the rules on joinder of parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of
common to all the defendants as may warrant their joinder under the Rules of Court and that, after a careful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that
Rule 3, section 6. Therefore, if new complaints are to be filed in the there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against respondents
name of the real party in interest they should be filed in the justice of Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its
the peace court. (87 Phil. 519, 520, reiterated in Gacula vs. Martinez, jurisdiction.
88 Phil. 142, 146)
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., and Paras, JJ., concur.