Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pantranco VS Standard Insurance
Pantranco VS Standard Insurance
DECISION
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Parties; Permissive Joinder of Parties; Requisites; Where there is a single
transaction common to both plaintiffs, they have the same cause of action against the defendants
FACTS
Crispin Gicale was driving the passenger jeepney owned by his mother Martina Gicale, respondent
herein. It was then raining. While driving north bound along the National Highway in Talavera, Nueva
Ecija, a passenger bus, owned by Pantranco North Express , was trailing behind. When the two vehicles
were negotiating a curve along the highway, the passenger bus overtook the jeepney. In so doing, the
passenger bus hit the left rear side of the jeepney and sped away.
Crispin reported the incident to the Talavera Police Station and respondent Standard Insurance Co.,
Inc. (Standard), insurer of the jeepney. The total cost of the repair was P21,415.00, but respondent
Standard paid only P8,000.00. Martina Gicale shouldered the balance of P13,415.00.
Thereafter, Standard and Martina, respondents, demanded reimbursement from petitioners
Pantranco and its driver Alexander Buncan, but they refused. This prompted respondents to file with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Manila, a complaint for sum of money.
the trial court rendered a Decision[3] in favor of respondents Standard and Martina, thus:
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling, holding that:
In the case at bench, the total of the two claims is definitely more than P20,000.00 which at the time of the
incident in question was the jurisdictional amount of the Regional Trial Court.
Appellants contend that there was a misjoinder of parties. Assuming that there was, under the Rules
of Court (Sec. 11, Rule 7) as well as under the Rules of Civil Procedure (ditto), the same does not affect
the jurisdiction of the court nor is it a ground to dismiss the complaint
ISSUE
WON there was misjoinder of parties (STANDARD and MARTINA GICALE) – NO
Petitioners insist that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the case since the cause of action of
each respondent did not arise from the same transaction and that there are no common questions
of law and fact common to both parties. Section 6, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, [5] provides:
Sec. 6. 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.
Permissive joinder of parties requires that: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same
transaction or series of transactions; (b) there is a question of law or fact common to all the
plaintiffs or defendants; and (c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules
on jurisdiction and venue.[6]
In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, Pantrancos bus hitting the rear side
of the jeepney. There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether petitioners are negligent. There
being a single transaction common to both respondents, consequently, they have the same cause
of action against petitioners.
Thus, the filing by both respondents of the complaint with the court below is in order. Such joinder
of parties avoids multiplicity of suit and ensures the convenient, speedy and orderly
administration of justice.
Corollarily, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same Rules provides:
Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action. A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as
many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions:
xxx
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
As previously stated, respondents cause of action against petitioners arose out of the same
transaction. Thus, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims.