Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

110 Phil 235:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-15593. November 29, 1960.]

MARIA BALDO, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants, v. PEDRO GUERRERO, ET AL., defendants and appellees.

Amado T. Evangelista for Appellants.

P. Guerrero and B. Villanueva for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PARTIES, JOINDER OF; WHEN PERMISSIBLE. — Where the plaintiffs’ right to relief arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions, as when defendants, by themselves and through their agents and tenants, allegedly started to construct fences around the parcels of land purportedly owned by the plaintiffs, and deprived the latter of the rightful enjoyment thereof; where the complaint or the pleadings presented for resolution, material questions of fact and law common to all the plaintiffs; and where their prayer was the same to have themselves restored to their respective landholdings and to enjoin the defendants from further acts of molestation and deprivation, with damages; the joinder of the plaintiffs clearly merits judicial approval.

2. ID.; SECTION 6, RULE 3, RULES OF COURT; PURPOSES. — The purposes of Section 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, as far as they concern actions for fort, are to avoid a multiplicity of suits for the same issue, to save the unnecessary expenditure of the public moneys for repeated trials of the same question, and to protect defendant from a multiplication of costs in repeated defenses of the same issue. (Karcher v. Downes, 31 B, Dist. & Co., 386, see note, 6, 67 C.J.S., p. 939).

3. MISJOINDER OR NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES IS NOT GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION. — Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just . . . (Sec. 11, Rule 3, Rules of Court).

4. DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; FINALITY. — Dismissal without prejudice to the filing of separate actions, which involves more than the refiling of the original complaint, is final in character and correctible on appeal.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


Appeal from the order of March 20, 1959 of the Court of First Instance of Zambales (Civil Case No. 2050) dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint and from the order of April 2, 1959 denying reconsideration of the first order.

In a complaint filed against defendants on September 14, 1958, plaintiffs, numbering twelve (12) in all, sought to recover the possession and ownership over certain parcels of land therein described. Maria Baldo claims title in fee simple over the first and second described parcels; Feliciana, Marcelo and Isabelo, all surnamed Blanco, over the third parcel; Francisco Abrajano and Julita Abrajano, over the fourth, fifth and sixth parcels; and Apolonio Farales over parcels seven and eight. The complaint alleges that around March and April of 1954, Defendants, by themselves or through others, unlawfully fenced off and took possession of the properties in question from the plaintiffs, thereby excluding the latter from the use and enjoyment thereof. Defendants’ answer denied the material averments of the complaint, raised affirmative defenses, and interposed a counter- claim.

On February 25, 1959, defendants filed a "motion to correct misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties", urging the court to order plaintiffs to "separate their (plaintiffs) different causes of action into different and separate complaints with the proper parties thereto" and "to include and join in all the complaints the Director of Lands as an indispensable party co-defendant." Over plaintiffs’ objection, the court, acting upon the motion, dismissed the complaint. "without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ filing separate action for each case." A motion to reconsider the order of dismissal having been denied, the plaintiffs appealed to this Court on question of law.

We find merit in the appeal. Section 6, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that —

"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; . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Commenting on this particular rule, former Chief Justice Moran opines:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The principle contained in this provision amplifies the old procedure. Formerly, it was only community of interest in the same subject which constituted a ground for joinder of parties; now, it is also the existence of a common question of fact or of law, provided the relief sought for or against the several parties arises from the same transaction or series of transactions whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative. In this connection, the term ‘transaction’ means not only a stipulation of agreement, but any event resulting in wrong, without regard to whether the wrong has been done by violence, neglect or breach of contract. And the term ‘series of transactions’ is equivalent to ‘transactions connected with the same subject of the action.’" (Comments on the Rules of Court, Moran, Vol. 1, 1957 ed., p. 49 1

In this case, the pleadings submitted, but more particularly the complaint, presented for resolution material questions of fact and law common to all the plaintiffs. The suitors’ right to relief arose out of the same transactions or series of transactions, when defendants, by themselves and through their agents and tenants, sometime in March and April, 1954, allegedly started to construct fences around the parcels of land and deprive the plaintiffs of the rightful enjoyment thereof, which the latter assert as theirs, in view of their ownership and prior possession. Their prayer was the same — to have themselves restored to their respective landholdings and to enjoin the defendants from further acts of molestation and deprivation, with damages. Upon these premises, the joinder of the plaintiffs clearly merits judicial approval.

The result is not changed merely because the lower court, in dismissing the complaint, did so without prejudice to the filing of separate or independent complaints, if in the opinion of the plaintiffs, either for legal or practical reasons, their joinder would be more advantageous to them.

"The purposes of this provision, as far as they concern actions for tort, are to avoid a multiplicity of suits for the same wrongful act, to prevent apparently inconsistent verdicts on the same issue, to save the unnecessary expenditure of the public moneys for repeated trials of the same question, and to protect defendant from a multiplication of costs in repeated defenses of the same issue." (Karcher v. Downes, 31 B Dits. & Co., 386; see note 6, 67 C.J.S., p. 939)

Appellees warn that a situation might arise during the proceedings when some of the parties would have no interest therein to protect and, therefore, would remain idle in the meanwhile that the incident is pending; but this matter is well safeguarded by the Rules, thus —

". . .; 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." (Sec. 6, Rule 3, Rules of Court)

As to the alleged non-joinder of the Director of Lands as a co- party defendant to the case, the court a quo, if it really deemed it proper, could have well ordered his inclusion without having to dismiss the action (De los Santos, Et Al., v. Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, Et Al., 64 Phil., 193, 198, and the cases cited therein).

Penultimately, Section 11 of Rule 3 of the said Rules of Court expresses:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately."cralaw virtua1aw library

The dismissal ordered by the court was obviously final in character and correctible only on appeal (see Veloso v. Ang Song Teng, 2 Phil., 622); and while it was made without prejudice to the filing of separate actions, such step, however, plainly will not be a mere question of refiling the original complaint. On this score, our ruling in the case of Lazaro v. Mariano, 59 Phil., 628, does not apply.

Wherefore, the orders appealed from are reversed, and the case is hereby ordered remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. Costs in this instance against defendants-appellees.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See also Emilio Abrasaldo v. Compañia Maritima, G. R. No. L-11918, July 31, 1958, and cases cited therein; Montes v. Castro, G.R. No. L-12372, April 30, 1959.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301