1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS Rule 02 CAUSE OF ACTION

Rule 02 Cause of Action

SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. - Every ordin ry !ivil !"ion #u$" %e % $ed on ! u$e o& !"ion. 'n( Section 1 of Rule 1 is entitled cause of action. That is an entirely new title, which is not found in the 1964 Rules. Section 1 expresses the principle that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action. That is a new provision but it is a fundamental principle all alon ! you cannot have a case unless you have a cause of action. "s a matter of fact under Rule 16, one of the rounds for a motion to dismiss is that your pleadin states no cause of action. Se!. 2. Cause of action, defined. - A ! u$e o& !"ion i$ ")e !" or o#i$$ion %y *)i!) viol "e$ ri,)" o& no")er. 'n( + r"y

#ow, for the first time, Section $, which is also a new provision, has incorporated the definition of what is a cause of action. %owever, a ain, it is not a new principle because even under the 1964 Rules such definition is already reco ni&ed. '( )efine cause of action. "( *"+S, -. "*T/-# is an act or omission by which a party violates a ri ht of another. C u$e o& A!"ion- ELE.ENTS/ '( 0hat are the ,1,2,#TS of cause of action 3 "( There are supposed to be 4 main elements( 1. a ri ht pertainin to the plaintiff5 $. a correlative obli ation of the defendant5 and 4. violation of plaintiff6s ri ht by the defendant 7also called delict8 9ou remove one of these and there is no cause of action. 9ou thin: of any case under the sun, it must have all these elements. #ow, there is a fourth element added by some cases and commentators ! the element of dama e suffered by the plaintiff. So based on that, these are the elements of a cause of action( 1. a R/;%T pertainin to the plaintiff5 $. a *-RR,1"T/<, -=1/;"T/-#S of the defendants5 4. a </-1"T/-# of plaintiff>s ri ht5 and 4. )"2";, suffered by the plaintiff. ,ven if there is violation, if there is no dama e, then what relief are you as:in for3 There can be no action where no in?ury is sustained. "s a matter of fact, in a recent case, the S* remar:ed that wron without dama e or dama e without wron does not constitute a cause of action since dama es are merely part of the remedy allowed for the in?ury caused by a beach or wron . There can be dama e without in?ury in those instances in which the loss harm was not the result of a violation of a le al duty. These e@uations loss are after all called damnum absque injuria. "nother latin maxim, Aaccio non datur non

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

damnificato, which means there could be no action where no in?ury is sustained. So that is part of the definition of cause of action. )ama e without in?ury does not create any cause of action. So the elements are( ri ht, obli ation, violation and dama e. These are the four elements of a cause of action. 9ou cannot ima ine of any civil case where the 4 elements are not present. ,B"2C1,( " debtor borrows money from creditor. Then, it is already due. "yaw pa rin ma bayad. 1et>s try to find out the elements. RIGHT the ri ht of the creditor to et bac: his money5 O!"IG#TIO$ ! The defendant has the obli ation to pay bac: the loan under the law on contracts5 %IO"#TIO$ or delict or wron ! the account fell due and the debtor is supposed to pay the creditor, but the former did not pay the latter5 &#'#G(. ! the creditor cannot et bac: his money. So, the 4 elements are there. -f course, when you file a complaint a ainst somebody, you do not prepare the complaint by enumeratin the elements. /n other words, nasa istorya man yan ba. /t is up for the defendant to analy&e. /t is the duty of the lawyer to analy&e the complaint whether the 4 elements are present. "#-T%,R ,B"2C1,( )ama es arisin from culpa a@uiliana. 9ou are crossin the street and a driver ?ust bump you there. "nd you are hospitali&ed. 9ou fail to report for wor:. RIGHT ! it is the ri ht of every person not to be molested. 9ou have the ri ht to wal: peacefully and not to be harmed5 O!"IG#TIO$ ! it is the obli ation of every person drivin to be careful so that he will not bump other people. 9ou do not have to enter into a contract with a person sayin you will not bump him5 &("ICT or )ron* ! because of your rec:lessness, you violated his ri ht by in?urin him5 &#'#G( ! / have to spend money in the hospital and / lost my income. The 4 elements are present. So there is a cause of action. /n other words, you cannot ima ine a civil case where the 4 elements are not present. "#-T%,R ,B"2C1,( )efendant borrowed money from you last year payable in #ovember 199D. "nd despite demands, still he has not paid you. #ow, is there a cause of action3 RIGHT ! the creditor has the ri ht to collect5 O!"IG#TIO$ ! every debtor has the obli ation to pay5 &#'#G( ! / have not recovered the money5 &("ICT or )ron* ! there is #- delict yet. 0hy3 There is no delict yet because the account is payable next year pa. So, it is still premature to file a collection case now because one element is missin . So, if / am the lawyer of the defendant, / will @uestion your complaint. /t is not based on a cause of action. That is dismissable under Rule 16. CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RI01T OF ACTION "nd of course, as part of the study of cause of action, we must be able to differentiate it from the soEcalled ri ht of action. These are basic fundamental issues in *ivil Crocedure( )istin uish a cause of action from a ri ht of action 7bar @uestion8. '( )efine ri ht of action. "( Ri ht of action is the ri ht of the plaintiff to brin an action and to prosecute that action to final ?ud ment. 72ar@ue& vs. <arela, 9$ Chil. 4F48

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

'( 0hat are the ,1,2,#TS of a ri ht of action3 "( There are two 7$8 elements( 1.8 the plaintiff must have a ood cause of action5 and $.8 the must have performed all conditions precedent to the filin of the action. So, you cannot have a ri ht of action unless you first have a cause of action. That is why the S* said in the case of DE 0U2.AN3 4R. vs. COURT OF A55EALS 19$ S*R" GHF %,1)( AThe ri ht of action sprin s from the cause of action, but does not accrue until all the facts which constitute the cause of action have occurred. 0hen there is an invasion of primary ri hts, then and not until then does the ad?ective or remedial law become operative, and under it arise ri hts of action. There can be no ri ht of action until there has been a wron ! a violation of a le al ri ht ! and it is then iven by the ad?ective law.I So, there can be no ri ht of action until there has been a wron , a violation of a le al ri ht. There can be no ri ht of action unless there is first a cause of action. "nd you must comply with the conditions precedent. 9ou cannot file a case unless you comply with certain conditions and the best illustration of this element is the case of 51IL. A.ERICAN 0ENERAL INSURANCE CO. vs. S6EETLINES $1$ S*R" 194 ."*TS( This involves a shipped car oes from 2anila to )avao but the oods were dama ed. =ased on dama ed car oes, the consi nee filed a case a ainst the carrier. "ctually, in the bill of ladin , there is a stipulation that if the consi nee wants to file a case arisin from the contract of carria e a ainst the carrier, the consi nee must first send a notice of loss to the carrier and then if the carrier will not honor it, and that is the time the consi nee can file a case before the court. #ow, he went to court directly without filin a notice of loss to the carrier. /SS+,( 0hether or not there is a ri ht of action. %,1)( There is #- ri ht of action because the consi nee did not comply with the conditions precedent. AThe ri ht of action does not arise until the performance of all conditions precedent to the action. Cerformance or fulfillment of all conditions precedent upon which a ri ht of action depends must be sufficiently alle ed, considerin that the burden of proof to show that a party has a ri ht of action is upon the person initiatin the suit.I A2ore particularly, where the contract of shipment contains a reasonable re@uirement of ivin notice of loss of or in?ury to the oods, the ivin of such notice is a condition precedent to the action for loss or in?ury or the ri ht to enforce the carrier>s liability.I ="R '+,ST/-#( )istin uish a *"+S, -. "*T/-# from a R/;%T -. "*T/-#. "( The followin are the distinctions( 1.8 *ause of action is the delict or wron committed by the defendant, )+ereas Ri ht of action refers to the ri ht of the plaintiff to institute the action5 $.8 *ause of action is created by substantive law 7e. . ri hts under the *ivil *ode8, whereas

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

Ri ht of action is re ulated by procedural law5 ARi ht of action is a remedial ri ht belon in to some persons, while cause of action is a formal statement of the operative facts that ive rise to such remedial ri ht.I 7)e ;u&man vs. *", su,ra8 4.8 Ri ht of action may be ta:en away by the runnin of statute of limitations, by estoppel or other circumstances which do not affect at all the cause of action. ,B"2C1,( 0hen a debtor borrows money and he does not pay. %is failure to pay is the cause of action. "fter 1H years, the ri ht to collect has prescribed and you cannot recover anythin . "ctually, what is barred is his ri ht of action, not the cause of action because the moment he does not pay, there is already a wron and you cannot erase a wron . The cause of action is not affected by prescription. /n fact, the *ivil *ode provides that the obli ation is converted into natural obli ation, which is based on e@uity rather than a ri ht. =ecause sometimes, you say that the action has prescribed. So you are invo:in the law on prescription. =ut what has prescribed3 /s it the cause of action3 #o. The cause of action does not prescribe. 0hat has prescribed is the ri ht of action. 9aanJ S5LITTIN0 A CAUSE OF ACTION Se!. 7. One suit for a sin*le cause of action. - A + r"y # y no" in$"i"u"e #ore ") n one $ui" &or $in,le ! u$e o& !"ion. '7 ( Section 4 is :nown as the rule a ainst splittin the cause of action. '( 0hat is splittin a sin le cause of action3 "( Splittin a cause of action is the practice of dividin one cause of action into different parts and ma:in each part a sub?ect of a different complaint. 7=achrach vs. /cariK al, 6D Chil. $DF8 That practice is expressly prohibited by law as expressed in Section 4, # ,arty may not institute more t+an one suit for a sin*le cause of action. The rule is simple( /f there is one cause of action, you file only one case. 9ou cannot file two, three or four cases arisin out of one cause of action, otherwise you are splittin it. ,B"2C1,( /n a suit under a promissory note, you file a case to collect the principal5 another action to collect the interest5 another action to collect attorney>s fees. So, there is only one note and you sue me three times but there is only one cause of action. #ow, under the law, you have split your cause of action. 9ou should file only one case to recover the principal and the interest as well as the attorney>s fees. ,B"2C1,( )ama e 7in?ury8 suit( *arlo, while wal:in was bumped by a vehicle. %e filed one case a ainst the owner of the vehicle for reimbursement of hospital expenses5 one case to recover his expenses for medicine5 another one for doctor>s fees5 then another case for the lost income. Cractical by you have filed four cases arisin from one cause of action. /san ban aan lan , na in apat an :aso3 " ain, the *arlo here has en a ed in the prohibited practice of splittin cause of action. The correct procedure is that he should file one action and demand the recovery of all these expenses and the lost income. Se!. 8. -,littin* a sin*le cause of action. effect of . - I& "*o or #ore $ui"$ re in$"i"u"ed on ")e % $i$ o& ")e $ #e ! u$e o& !"ion3 ")e &ilin, o& one or 9ud,#en" u+on ")e #eri"$ in ny one i$ v il %le $ ,round &or ")e di$#i$$ l o& ")e o")er$. '8 ( '( "nd what are the effects of splittin a cause of action3 "( +nder Section 4, the followin are the effects(

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

1.8 The filin of one is available as a round for the dismissal of other. That is what you call 1/T/S C,#),#T/" ! there is another action pendin between the same parties for the same cause. This is one round for dismissal of a case 7Rule 16 ! 2otion to )ismiss, Section 1 LeM8 So you file a case. "nd while it is pendin , you file another case a ainst the same party with the same cause of action. +nder Section 4, one of them is sub?ect to dismissal. $.8 a ?ud ment upon the merits in any one is available as a round for the dismissal of the others. That is what you call barred by ,rior jud*ment or R,S ")N+)/*"T", which is also a round for dismissal under Rule 16, Section 1 LfM. ,B"2C1,( " case was already decided a lon time a o. #ow, you are revivin the same case ! you are filin a ain. +nder Section 4, the ?ud ment in the first case years a o would be cited as a basis for the dismissal of the second case. '( 0hat is the reason or philosophy for the rule a ainst splittin a sin le cause of action3 "( The rule a ainst splittin a cause of action is intended to prevent repeated liti ations between the same parties in re ard to the same sub?ect of controversy5 to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation5 and to avoid the costs incident to numerous suits. 7=achrach vs. /cariK al, su,ra. =acolod *ity vs. San 2i uel, /nc., 1E$G144, -ct. 4H, 19698 "ctually, the reason is common sense eh ! to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation. 0hy create two cases when you have only one cause of action3 "nd why ma:e me spend more3 2a asto yun bali:Ebali: sa court. /t becomes an expensive process. "nd why should you harass somebody when he only committed one wron 3 9ou file a case a ainst him but do not harass him more than once. $emo debet vis vesare ,rocuna em iyadens cusa ! A#o man shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause.I SIN0LENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION '( %ow do you determine the sin leness of a cause of action3 "( The sin leness of a cause of action is determined by the sin leness of the delict or wron committed by the defendant and not by the number of remedies that the law rants the in?ured party. 2eanin , a sin le delict may ive rise to two or more possible remedies but it does not mean to say the in?ured party can avail of all those remedies simultaneously or one after another. 7=achrach vs. /cariK al, su,ra. )avid vs. )e la *ru&, 1E116G6, "pril 1D, 19GD8 ,B"2C1,( -bli ations and *ontracts( " violation or a breach of contract could ive rise to a civil action for specific performance or a civil action for rescission of contract. %owever, it does not mean to say that the in?ured party can file both or one after the other. -therwise, he will be splittin his cause of action. ,B"2C1,( There is the Recto 1aw 7on Sales8 on the remedies of an unpaid seller of personal properties. / thin: the law rants three remedies ! 718 rescind the contract of sale5 7$8 exact fulfillment of obli ation5 and 748 foreclosure of mort a e. =ut even the law on Sales is very clear( the choice of one automatically bars resort to the other because it will be a ainst splittin the cause of action. ,B"2C1,( *redit Transactions( " ban: has two 7$8 possible remedies a ainst a debtor for nonEpayment of a loan secured by a mort a ed say, piece of land( 718 foreclose the mort a e on the land5 or 7$8 file an action to collect the loan. %ere, the ban: cannot file a case the debtor to collect the loan and at the same time file an action to foreclose the mort a e for it will be splittin the cause of action. So it is either you enforce the principal contract of loan, or, you enforce the accessory contract of mort a e. This is what happened in the case of DANAO vs. COURT OF A55EALS 1G4 S*R" 446

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

."*TS( The )anao spouses borrowed money from the ban:, mort a ed their property and then they failed to pay. The ban: filed a civil action to collect the loan. "fter filin a civil action to collect the loan, the ban: instituted an action to foreclose the mort a e. %,1)( A"nent real properties in particular, the *ourt has laid down the rule that a mort a e creditor may institute a ainst the mort a e debtor either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mort a e. /n other words, he may pursue either of the two remedies, but not both.I A,vidently, the prior recourse of the creditor ban: in filin a civil action a ainst the )anao spouses and subse@uently resortin to the complaint of foreclosure proceedin s, are not only a demonstration of the prohibited splittin up of a cause of action but also of the resultin vexation and oppression to the debtor.I So those are examples of splittin a cause of action and illustrations of the rule that one cause of action may ive rise to two or more remedies but it does not follow that you can avail of all those remedies. -ne is enou h, otherwise, you will be splittin a ain you cause of action. RULES IN DETERMINING THE SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION #ow, with respect to splittin a cause of action, you must familiari&e yourselves on how this rule is applied to breach of contract and if there are several stipulations. Sometimes it is easy to determine whether there is one cause of action. Sometimes it is difficult. Sometimes you et confused, Oano ba ito3 /sa lan ba ito o more than one3> RULE :1 7General Rule8( " contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be violated only once, even if it contains several stipulations. 7'uio@ue vs. =autista, 1E141G9, .eb. $D, 196$8 ,B"2C1,( Cauline enters into a contract with #ud? which contains 4 stipulations( 7P18 that next month, Cauline will deliver to #ud? 1HH sac:s of rice5 7P$8 on the same date, Cauline will also deliver to #ud? 1HH sac:s of corn5 and 7P48 on the same date, Cauline will also deliver to #ud? 1HH sac:s of su ar. 0hen the day arrived, nothin was delivered. So three stipulations were violated. '( %ow many causes of action does #ud? have a ainst Cauline3 "( -#,. The contract is only one cause of action even if it contains several stipulations. The cause of action is not based on the number of para raphs violated but on the contract itself. RULE :2 7(/ce,tion to t+e General Rule8( " contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at different times ives rise to as many causes of action as there are violations. 71arena vs. <illanueva, G4 Chil. 9$48 ,B"2C1,( " loan with a promissory note where the principal amount is payable in installment. There is one promissory note where the loan is C4HH,HHH. "nd then the first installment is payable this year 7199F8. "nd then the second installment is payable in 199D and the third installment is payable in 1999 without any acceleration clause. So, there is only one contract of loan but the principal is payable in three installments at different times. .or nonE payment of the first installment this year 7199F8, the creditor can file one case. So C1HH,HHH for 199F ! one cause of action. '( #ext year, he did not pay the second installment, can the creditor file another case3 "( 9,S, because this time it is the exception. ,very installment is one cause of action even if there is only one note. Remember that they are to be performed at different times. RULE :7 7(/ce,tion to t+e e/ce,tion8(

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

"ll obli ations which have matured at the time of the suit must be inte rated as one cause of action in one complaint, and those not so included would be barred. 71arena vs. <illanueva, G4 Chil. 9$48

Rule 02 Cause of Action

,B"2C1,( /n 199F, the debtor did not pay but the creditor did not file any case, pinabayaan lan niya. Then in 199D, the second installment was not also paid. So dalawa na. The total claim now is C$HH,HHH. So the creditor said, there are two unpaid installmentsQ199F and 199DJ So dalawa na, / will file two cases.I '( /s the creditor correct3 "( %e is wron . /sahin mo na lan yan. 0hen all the installment are already due and the creditor has not filed any case for the collection of the first installment, this time, when he files for collection of the unpaid second installment, everythin must be inte rated. So there should only be one complaint for C$HH,HHH representin the first and second installments. /f you do not file a claim for one, it is deemed barred. So for example, if you will wait for the entire note to mature, you cannot apply rule $. 9ou should only file one action for C4HH,HHH and you o bac: to the eneral rule. RULE :8 7,xception to Rule P$8( %owever, when the failure to comply with one of several stipulations in a continuin contract constitutes a total breach, a sin le cause of action for dama es, actual as well as prospective, arises from such breach. 7=lossom R *o. vs. 2anila ;as *orp., GG Chil. $$68 ,B"2C1,( This year the first installment fell due. So the creditor demanded payment for the first installment from the debtor which the latter denied,J The si nature in the note is not mineJI #ow, in that :ind of statement, he is not only repudiatin the first installment. %e is repudiatin the entire note. So under rule P4, the creditor can file a case for the entire loan of C4HH,HHH because it has been repudiated. /f you only file only one for the C1HH,HHH which fell due, then next year, file na naman, it will be useless because he will still maintain the same position, A0ala a:on utan sa iyoJ Ti as n uloJI So you do not wait anymore for the $nd and 4rd installments to fall due. 9ou file only one case for the entire breach. There is a total breach for a continuin obli ation and there is now only one cause of action for the entire promissory note So these are the basic principles of cause of action that / want you to remember. 4OINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION SEC. ;. 0oinder of causes of action. - A + r"y # y in one +le din, $$er"3 in ")e l"ern "ive or o")er*i$e3 $ # ny ! u$e$ o& !"ion $ )e # y ) ve , in$" n o++o$in, + r"y3 $u%9e!" "o ")e &ollo*in, !ondi"ion$/ <<<<< # ,arty may in one ,leadin* assert, in t+e alternative or ot+er)ise, as many causes of action as +e may +ave a*ainst an o,,osin* ,arty 1o,enin* ,ara*ra,+ of -ection 23 '( 0hat do you mean by ?oinder of causes of action3 "( Noinder of causes of action is the provision of the Rules which allows a party to ?oin in one pleadin two or more causes of actions a ainst the opposin party.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

CR-=1,2( /n 1994, the debtor secured a loan of CGH,HHH payable in 199F. /n 199G, a second loan of CGH,HHH payable in 199F and then in 1996, another loan of CGH,HHH payable in 199F. So there are three debts that will fall due in 199F. /n 199F when they became due, the creditor filed 4 cases a ainst the debtor ! one case for every promissory note. '( 0ere the cases properly filed3 "( 9,S because there were 4 promissory notes. =ut the creditor can file one complaint to ?oin the three loans. This is called ?oinder of causes of action. This is different from the case of an installment where there is only one loan althou h payable in three installments. /n the problem above, there are 4 loans, 4 promissory notes in 4 different years. So there are 4 causes of action. "nd when you file one case for every promissory note, you are not violatin the rule a ainst splittin a cause of action. 9ou are actually not filin more than one case because there is one case for every loan. %owever, while you are allowed to file three cases, Section G allows you to file only one case and that is called ?oinder of causes of action. T%, CR/#*/C1,( 9ou cannot file more than one case when you have only one cause of action but the law allows you to file one case for more than one cause of action. '( +nder Section G, is the creditor obli ed to file one complaint for the 4 promissory notes3 "( #-, because ?oinder of causes of action is permissive. %e may or may not. So the creditor may file 4 complaints for the 4 promissory notes, or, file only one complaint assertin the 4 claims for the 4 promissory notes. ALTERNATIVE nd CU.ULATIVE 4oinder o& C u$e$ o& A!"ion '( %ow may causes of action be ?oined3 "( *auses of action may be ?oined either( 7a8 alternatively or 7b8 cumulatively. "n "1T,R#"T/<, N-/#),R exists when your cause of action is either one or the other. 9ou are not see:in relief from both but either one. " *+2+1"T/<, N-/#),R exists when you are see:in relief for all your causes of action. "1T,R#"T/<, ?oinder5 ,xample( "ileen is the importer of the oods that were shipped on board a carrier. +pon reachin )avao *ity, they were departed with the arrastre or stevedorin operator. The oods were delivered to "ileen in a dama ed condition, and then re:lamo siya sa arrastre or stevedorin . Then the arraster says, A)ama ed na dati yan when it was unloaded from the carrier.I Then when "ileen went to the carrier, *arrier( A#o, the dama e happened in their 7arrastre>s8 custody.I #ow, the "ileen here has two 7$8 possible causes of action( 718 an action a ainst the stevedorin operator under the contract of depositary under the law on *redit Transaction5 -r, 7$8 an action a ainst the carrier under the 1aw on Transportation. So there are $ possible causes of action. '( *an "ileen file a complaint incorporatin the two 7arrastre and the carrier8 both as defendants3 "( 9,S, that is allowed. This is alternative ?oinder because "ileen is not claimin from both of them, but either one or the other. "ileen is not sure so she decided to file a case a ainst both of them. "t least isa sa :anila matamaan man ba. "1T,R#"T/<, ?oinder5 "nother ,xample( *hams is a passen er ridin on a public utility vehicle which collided with another vehicle and she is not sure who is at fault. /f the fault lies with the other vehicle, and the driver of the bus where *hams was ridin is not at fault, then her cause of action a ainst the other vehicle is @uasiEdelict. =ut if the fault lies with the driver of the bus where she was ridin , her cause of action is culpa contractual. So she has $ possible causes of action.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

'( /s it possible for *hams to file one complaint namin both the drivers or both operators as defendants3 "( 9,S. ,ither of them is liable to her. That is alternative ?oinder of causes of action. *+2+1"T/<, N-/#),R5 ,xample( Cches, who is forever on a diet, files a case to collect 4 unpaid promissory notes from the Nohn AThe 9ellow 2anI. Cches is not claimin from either promissory notes but she is claimin all. "#-T%,R ,B"2C1,( Roy AThe *ouncilor,I an ille itimate child files a case a ainst his father for compulsory ac:nowled ment as ille itimate child and support. There are two causes of action which are ained( an action for reco nition and also for support. This is not alternative actions but rather, these are cumulative. The child is as:in for =-T% relief. That is why the manner of ?oinin the defendants alternatively or otherwise should be correlated with Rule 4, Section 14 and Rule D, Section $( RULE 73 SEC. 17. #lternative defendants. - 6)ere ")e +l in"i&& i$ un!er" in , in$" *)o o& $ever l +er$on$ )e i$ en"i"led "o relie&3 )e # y 9oin ny or ll o& ")e# $ de&end n"$ in ")e l"ern "ive3 l")ou,) ri,)" "o relie& , in$" one # y %e in!on$i$"en" *i") ri,)" o& relie& , in$" ")e o")er. '17 ( RULE =3 SEC. 2. #lternative causes of action or defenses. - A + r"y # y $e" &or") "*o or #ore $" "e#en"$ o& !l i# or de&en$e l"ern "ively or )y+o")e"i! lly3 ei")er in one ! u$e o& !"ion or de&en$e or in $e+ r "e ! u$e$ o& !"ion or de&en$e$. 6)en "*o or #ore $" "e#en"$ re # de in ")e l"ern "ive nd one o& ")e# i& # de inde+enden"ly *ould %e $u&&i!ien"3 ")e +le din, i$ no" # de in$u&&i!ien" %y ")e in$u&&i!ien!y o& one or #ore o& ")e l"ern "ive $" "e#en"$. '2( '( 0hen is ?oinder of causes of action allowed3 "( +nder Section G, ?oinder of causes of action is allowed under the followin conditions( a.8 The party ?oinin the causes of action shall comply with the rules on ?oinder of parties5 b.8 The ?oinder shall not include special civil actions or actions overned by special rules5 c.8 0here the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or ?urisdictions, the ?oinder may be allowed in the Re ional Trial *ourt provided one of the causes of action falls within the ?urisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein5 and d.8 0here the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the a re ate amount claimed shall be the test of ?urisdiction. 7Ga8 a.3 T+e ,arty joinin* t+e causes of action s+all com,ly )it+ t+e rules on joinder of ,arties 0e will meet ?oinder of parties when we reach Rule 4, Section 6 which provides that two 7$8 or more persons can ?oin as plaintiffs in one complaint or can be ?oined as defendants in one complaint, provided there is a common @uestion of fact or law involved in that case. ,B"2C1,( Two or more passen ers ridin on the same bus, met an accident. "ll of them were in?ured. So lahat sila may cause of action noh3 ,very passen er who ets in?ured has a cause of action. So they decided to file a dama e suit. '( *an they be ?oined in one complaint3 "( 9,S because there is a common @uestion of fact or law. They are ridin on the same bus, meetin the same accident, a ainst the same operator. So there is a ?oinder of parties under Rule 4. "nd if the ?oinder of parties under Rule 4 is proper,

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

then their causes of action can also be ?oined under Rule $ because the condition is( Ashall comply with the rules on ?oinder of parties.I '( Suppose these passen ers were ridin on different buses owned by the one operator. They are on different trips. -ne is oin to 2ati5 one is oin to ;eneral Santos5 and one is oin to *otabato. "ll of them met an accident. 0ell of course the same :ind of case( dama e suit, breach of contract a ainst the same operator. #ow, can their causes of action be ?oined3 "( #-. They cannot be ?oined because there is no common @uestion of fact or law. The defense of the operator here is different from his defense there. 2eanin , passen er " has nothin to do with the complaint of passen er = because there is no common denominator between them. So if you cannot ?oin them under Rule 4, the ?oinder of causes of action under Rule $ is also improper. b.3 T+e joinder s+all not include s,ecial civil actions or actions *overned by s,ecial rules So, a ?oinder shall not include special civil actions or actions overned by special rules. The reason here is simple( Special *ivil "ctions are overned by certain rules which do not apply to ordinary civil actions. So a special civil action cannot be ?oined with an ordinary civil action, or, an ordinary civil action cannot be ?oined with an action overned by special rules such as ,lection cases, naturali&ation cases, insolvency cases. /n the 19D4 case of UNION 0LASS AND CONTAINER COR5. vs. SEC 1$6 S*R" 41 ."*TS( 7This is still a ood rulin 8 " stoc:holder of a corporation who is also the creditor of the corporation decided to file one complaint a ainst the corporation assertin several causes of action, amon them is his ri hts as a stoc:holder under the *orporation *ode and also his ri hts as a creditor under the *ivil *ode. %,1)( The ?oinder is improper. /n the first place, one is overned by a @uasiE?udicial body 7S,*8. So how can the RT* try a case when the cause of action is pertainin to the S,* and it is overned by the special rules of the S,*3 So you cannot ?oin that. c.3 4+ere t+e causes of action are bet)een t+e same ,arties but ,ertain to different venues or jurisdictions, t+e joinder may be allo)ed in t+e Re*ional Trial Court ,rovided one of t+e causes of action falls )it+in t+e jurisdiction of said court and t+e venue lies t+erein CR-=1,2( 2aceste encroached on two parcels of land belon in to me. /n one parcel of land, the assessed value of that is only C$H,HHH. /n another parcel of land, the assessed vaue is C1 million. / would li:e to file a case of action publiciana a ainst him. )alawa eh ! there are $ lands encroached. The first accion publiciana is triable by the 2T* 7C$H,HHH8. The other accion publiciana is triable by the RT*. '( *an / ?oin them3 "( 9,S, and it must be filed it in the RT*. The ?urisdiction of the RT* will prevail. CR-=1,2( 2aceste encroached on my land in Ta um with an assessed value of C$H,HHH. "nd then he encroached in another land of mine in )avao *ity with an assessed value of C1 million. 9ou will notice that in the Ta um land, the ?urisdiction is in the 2T* for the case accion publiciana and the venue is Ta um because the property is situated there. /n the other case, the ?urisdiction is in the RT* and the venue is )avao *ity. '( *an / file a case a ainst 2aceste ?oinin the $ cases3 "( 9,S. '( 0here is now the overnin venue3 "( The venue of the RT* case prevails. Therefore, the case must be filed in )avao *ity.

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

CR-=1,2( 2aceste encroached on my land in Ta um with an assessed value of C1 million. "nd then he encroached in another land of mine in )avao *ity with an assessed value of C1 million also. 9ou will notice that in the Ta um land, the ?urisdiction is RT* for the case accion publiciana. /n the other case, the ?urisdiction is also in the RT* of )avao *ity. So both actions, RT*. '( /n which RT* will you file the case ?oinin the causes of action3 "( ,ither Ta um or )avao *ity because both are RT*s. CR-=1,2( 2aceste encroached on my land in Ta um with an assessed value of C$H,HHH. "nd then he encroached in another land of mine in )avao *ity with an assessed value of C$H,HHH also. /n the Ta um land, the ?urisdiction is 2T* for the case accion publiciana. /n the other case, the ?urisdiction is also in the 2T*. So both actions, 2T*. '( *an / ?oin in one complaint the $ actions3 "( #-, because the law says provided one of the causes of action falls within the ?urisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein. -ne of them belon s to the RT*. /n the example, both belon to the 2T*. CR-=1,2( 2aceste encroached on my land more than one year a o and the land has an assessed value of only C$H,HHH. So if / will file an accion publiciana, it has to be filed with the 2T*. -n the other hand, "aron encroached my other parcel of land more than one year a o and the assessed value of the land is C1 million. So my cause of action there is also accion publiciana but triable by the RT*. so / decided to file a case namin both of them as defendants. '( *an they be ?oined under Section G3 "( #-. The law allows only if it is between the same parties. This time the parties are not the same. Clus the fact that you mi ht violate para raph LaM ! there is no common @uestion of fact and law between them. CR-=1,2( 2aceste encroached on my land in )avao *ity on month a o and then he encroached on another land of mine 7assessed value of C1 million8 in )avao *ity two years a o. Therefore, one case is forcible entry triable by the 2T* and the latter is accion publiciana triable by the RT*. '( *an / ?oin them under para raph LcM althou h they belon to 2T* and RT*3 "( #-, you cannot ?oin them because of para raph LbM ! a forcible entry is special civil action which is also overned by the Summary Crocedure. 9ou cannot ?oin a special civil action. So what is violated here is not para raph LcM but para raph LbM. d.3 )+ere t+e claims in all t+e causes of action are ,rinci,ally for recovery of money, t+e a**re*ate amount claimed s+all be t+e test of jurisdiction The last is only a repetition of the old rule( T-T"1/T9 R+1,. There is nothin new here. So ?udiciary law, totality rule, basta sums of money. SEC. >. 'isjoinder of causes of action. - .i$9oinder o& ! u$e$ o& !"ion i$ no" ,round &or di$#i$$ l o& n !"ion. A #i$9oined ! u$e o& !"ion # y3 on #o"ion o& + r"y or on ")e ini"i "ive o& ")e !our"3 %e $evered nd +ro!eeded *i") $e+ r "ely. 'n( There is mis?oinder when two 7$8 or more causes of action where ?oined in one complaint when they should no be ?oined. ,B"2C1,( " case ?oinin an accion publiciana case and a forcible entry case which is not proper because a special civil action 7forcible entry8 cannot be ?oined. /n this case there is mis?oinder of causes of action. +nder Section 6, if there is mis?oinder, you do not dismiss the case. The remedy is to as: the court that the mis?oined case be severed and tried separately. #ow, an counterpart nito which is still present is mis?oinder of parties under Rule 4, Section 11( RULE 73 Se!. 11. 'isjoinder and non joinder of ,arties. - Nei")er #i$9oinder nor non-9oinder o& + r"ie$ ,round &or di$#i$$ l o& n !"ion. 5 r"ie$ # y %e dro++ed or dded %y order o& ")e !our" on

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

Rule 02 Cause of Action

#o"ion o& ny + r"y or on i"$ o*n ini"i "ive " ny $" ,e o& ")e !"ion nd on $u!) "er#$ $ re 9u$". A !l i# , in$" #i$9oined + r"y # y %e $evered nd +ro!eeded *i") $e+ r "ely. '11 ( So mis?oinder of parties and mis?oinder of causes of action are not rounds for dismissal of an action. Nust remove the mis?oined cause of action or the mis?oined party.