Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pantranco VS Standard Insurance

    Uploaded by

    fermo ii ramos
    272 views2 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a case involving a collision between a passenger jeepney and bus owned by Pantranco North Express. Standard Insurance Company paid part of the repair costs for the jeepney owned by Martina Gicale, while Gicale paid the remainder. Both Standard and Gicale then filed a joint complaint against Pantranco and its driver for reimbursement. The Court found there was no misjoinder of parties as the claims arose from the same transaction and involved common questions of fact. It also noted that where claims in a case principally involve money, the aggregate amount claimed determines jurisdiction. The petition seeking to dismiss the case for alleged misjoinder

    Original Description:

    a case digest in civil procedure

    Original Title

    PANTRANCO VS STANDARD INSURANCE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a case involving a collision between a passenger jeepney and bus owned by Pantranco North Express. Standard Insurance Company paid part of the repair costs for the jeepney owned by Martina Gicale, while Gicale paid the remainder. Both Standard and Gicale then filed a joint complaint against Pantranco and its driver for reimbursement. The Court found there was no misjoinder of parties as the claims arose from the same transaction and involved common questions of fact. It also noted that where claims in a case principally involve money, the aggregate amount claimed determines jurisdiction. The petition seeking to dismiss the case for alleged misjoinder

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    272 views2 pages

    Pantranco VS Standard Insurance

    Uploaded by

    fermo ii ramos
    This document is a Supreme Court decision regarding a case involving a collision between a passenger jeepney and bus owned by Pantranco North Express. Standard Insurance Company paid part of the repair costs for the jeepney owned by Martina Gicale, while Gicale paid the remainder. Both Standard and Gicale then filed a joint complaint against Pantranco and its driver for reimbursement. The Court found there was no misjoinder of parties as the claims arose from the same transaction and involved common questions of fact. It also noted that where claims in a case principally involve money, the aggregate amount claimed determines jurisdiction. The petition seeking to dismiss the case for alleged misjoinder

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 140746. March 16, 2005]


    PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC., and ALEXANDER BUNCAN, petitioners, vs. STANDARD
    INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and MARTINA GICALE, respondents.

    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

    Hence, this petition for review on certiorari 

    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.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED

    You might also like