1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
ORDINARY CIVIL ACTIONS
Rule 02
CAUSE OF ACTION
SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. - Every ordinary civil action
must be based on a cause of action. (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 along – you cannot have a case
unless you have a cause of action.
As a matter of fact under Rule 16, one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss is that your pleading
states no cause of action.
Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of action is the act or omission
by which a party violates a right of another. (n)
Now, for the first time, Section 2, which is also a new provision, has incorporated the definition of
what is a cause of action. However, again, it is not a new principle because even under the 1964 Rules
we must such definition is already recognized.
Q: Define cause of action.
A: CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.
Cause of Action; ELEMENTS:
Q: What are the ELEMENTS of cause of action ?
A: There are supposed to be 3 main elements:
1. a right pertaining to the plaintiff;
2. a correlative obligations of the defendant; and
3. violation of plaintiff's right by the defendant (also called delict)
You remove one of these and there is no cause of action. You think of any case under the sun, it
must have all these elements. Now, there is a fourth element added by some cases and commentators –
the element of damage suffered by the plaintiff. So based on that, these are the elements of a cause of
action:
1. a RIGHT pertaining to the plaintiff;
2. a CORRELATIVE OBLIGATIONS of the defendants;
3. a VIOLATION of plaintiff’s right; and
4. DAMAGE suffered by the plaintiff.
Even if there is violation, if there is no damage, then what relief are you asking for? There can be no
action where no injury is sustained.
As a matter of fact, in a recent case, the SC remarked that wrong without damage or damage
without wrong does not constitute a cause of action since damages are merely part of the remedy
allowed for the injury caused by a beach or wrong.
There can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss harm was not the result of
a violation of a legal duty. These equations loss are after all called “damnum absque injuria.” Another
latin maxim, “accio non datur non damnificato”, which means there could be no action where no injury is
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
62
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
sustained. So that is part of the definition of cause of action. Damage without injury does not create
any cause of action.
So the elements are: right, obligation, violation and damage. These are the four elements of a cause
of action. You cannot imagine of any civil case where the 4 elements are not present.
EXAMPLE: A debtor borrows money from creditor. Then, it is already due. Ayaw pa ring
magbayad. Let’s try to find out the elements.
RIGHT - the right of the creditor to get back his money;
OBLIGATION – The defendant has the obligation to pay back the loan under the law on
contracts;
VIOLATION or delict or wrong – the account fell due and the debtor is supposed to pay the
creditor, but the former did not pay the latter;
DAMAGE. – the creditor cannot get back his money.
So, the 4 elements are there. Of course, when you file a complaint against somebody, you do not
prepare the complaint by enumerating the elements. In other words, nasa istorya man yan ba. It is up
for the defendant to analyze. It is the duty of the lawyer to analyze the complaint whether the 4
elements are present.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Damages arising from culpa aquiliana. You are crossing the street and a
driver just bump you there. And you are hospitalized. You fail to report for work.
RIGHT – it is the right of every person not to be molested. You have the right to walk peacefully
and not to be harmed;
OBLIGATION – it is the obligation of every person driving to be careful so that he will not
bump other people. You do not have to enter into a contract with a person saying you
will not bump him;
DELICT or wrong – because of your recklessness, you violated his right by injuring him;
DAMAGE – I have to spend money in the hospital and I lost my income.
The 4 elements are present. So there is a cause of action. In other words, you cannot imagine a civil
case where the 4 elements are not present.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Defendant borrowed money from you last year payable in November 1998.
And despite demands, still he has not paid you. Now, is there a cause of action?
RIGHT – the creditor has the right to collect;
OBLIGATION – every debtor has the obligation to pay;
DAMAGE – I have not recovered the money;
DELICT or wrong – there is NO delict yet.
Why? 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 missing. So, if I am the lawyer of the defendant, I will
question your complaint. It is not based on a cause of action. That is dismissable under Rule 16.
CAUSE OF ACTION vs. RIGHT OF ACTION
And of course, as part of the study of cause of action, we must be able to differentiate it from the socalled right of action. These are basic fundamental issues in Civil Procedure: Distinguish a cause of
action from a right of action (bar question).
Q: Define right of action.
A: Right of action is the right of the plaintiff to bring an action and to prosecute that action to final
judgment. (Marquez vs. Varela, 92 Phil. 373)
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
63
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
Q: What are the ELEMENTS of a right of action?
A: There are two (2) elements:
1.) the plaintiff must have a good cause of action; and
2.) the must have performed all conditions precedent to the filing of the action.
So, you cannot have a right of action unless you first have a cause of action. That is why the SC said
in the case of
DE GUZMAN, JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
192 SCRA 507
HELD: “The right of action springs from the cause of action, but does not accrue until all
the facts which constitute the cause of action have occurred. When there is an invasion of
primary rights, then and not until then does the adjective or remedial law become operative,
and under it arise rights of action. There can be no right of action until there has been a
wrong – a violation of a legal right – and it is then given by the adjective law.”
So, there can be no right of action until there has been a wrong, a violation of a legal right. There
can be no right of action unless there is first a cause of action.
And you must comply with the conditions precedent. You cannot file a case unless you comply
with certain conditions and the best illustration of this element is the case of
PHIL. AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE CO. vs. SWEETLINES
212 SCRA 194
FACTS: This involves a shipped cargoes from Manila to Davao but the goods were
damaged. Based on damaged cargoes, the consignee filed a case against the carrier.
Actually, in the bill of lading, there is a stipulation that if the consignee wants to file a case
arising from the contract of carriage against the carrier, the consignee 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
consignee can file a case before the court. Now, he went to court directly without filing a
notice of loss to the carrier.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a right of action.
HELD: There is NO right of action because the consignee did not comply with the
conditions precedent.
“The right of action does not arise until the performance of all conditions precedent to
the action. Performance or fulfillment of all conditions precedent upon which a right of
action depends must be sufficiently alleged, considering that the burden of proof to show
that a party has a right of action is upon the person initiating the suit.”
“More particularly, where the contract of shipment contains a reasonable requirement of
giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods, the giving of such notice is a condition
precedent to the action for loss or injury or the right to enforce the carrier’s liability.”
BAR QUESTION: Distinguish a CAUSE OF ACTION from a RIGHT OF ACTION.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Cause of action is the delict or wrong committed by the defendant, whereas
Right of action refers to the right of the plaintiff to institute the action;
2.) Cause of action is created by substantive law (e.g. rights under the Civil Code), whereas
Right of action is regulated by procedural law;
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
64
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
“Right of action is a remedial right belonging to some persons, while cause of action
is a formal statement of the operative facts that give rise to such remedial right.” (De
Guzman vs. CA, supra)
3.) Right of action may be taken away by the running of statute of limitations, by estoppel or
other circumstances which do not affect at all the cause of action.
EXAMPLE: When a debtor borrows money and he does not pay. His failure to pay is the
cause of action. After 10 years, the right to collect has prescribed and you cannot recover
anything. Actually, what is barred is his right of action, not the cause of action because the
moment he does not pay, there is already a wrong and you cannot erase a wrong. The cause
of action is not affected by prescription. In fact, the Civil Code provides that the obligation is
converted into natural obligation, which is based on equity rather than a right.
Because sometimes, you say that the action has prescribed. So you are invoking the law on
prescription. But what has prescribed? Is it the cause of action? No. The cause of action does not
prescribe. What has prescribed is the right of action. Yaan!
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. - A party may not institute
more than one suit for a single cause of action. (3a)
Section 3 is known as the rule against splitting the cause of action.
Q: What is splitting a single cause of action?
A: Splitting a cause of action is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts and
making each part a subject of a different complaint. (Bachrach vs. Icariñgal, 68 Phil. 287)
That practice is expressly prohibited by law as expressed in Section 3, “A party may not institute more
than one suit for a single cause of action.” The rule is simple: If there is one cause of action, you file only
one case. You cannot file two, three or four cases arising out of one cause of action, otherwise you are
splitting it.
EXAMPLE: In a suit under a promissory note, you file a case to collect the principal; another action
to collect the interest; 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. Now, under the law, you have split your cause of
action. You should file only one case to recover the principal and the interest as well as the attorney’s
fees.
EXAMPLE: Damage (injury) suit: Carlo, while walking was bumped by a vehicle. He filed one case
against the owner of the vehicle for reimbursement of hospital expenses; one case to recover his
expenses for medicine; another one for doctor’s fees; then another case for the lost income. Practical by
you have filed four cases arising from one cause of action. Isang banggaan lang, naging apat ang kaso?
Again, the Carlo here has engaged in the prohibited practice of splitting 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.
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. - If two or more
suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of
one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others. (4a)
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
65
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
Q: And what are the effects of splitting a cause of action?
A: Under Section 4, the following are the effects:
1.) The filing of one is available as a ground for the dismissal of other. That is what you call LITIS
PENDENTIA – there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.
This is one ground for dismissal of a case (Rule 16 – Motion to Dismiss, Section 1 [e])
So you file a case. And while it is pending, you file another case against the same party
with the same cause of action. Under Section 4, one of them is subject to dismissal.
2.) a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
That is what you call barred by prior judgment or RES ADJUDICATA, which is also a ground for
dismissal under Rule 16, Section 1 [f].
EXAMPLE: A case was already decided a long time ago. Now, you are reviving the
same case – you are filing again. Under Section 4, the judgment in the first case years ago
would be cited as a basis for the dismissal of the second case.
Q: What is the reason or philosophy for the rule against splitting a single cause of action?
A: The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended to prevent repeated litigations between
the same parties in regard to the same subject of controversy; to protect the defendant from
unnecessary vexation; and to avoid the costs incident to numerous suits. (Bachrach vs. Icariñgal, supra;
Bacolod City vs. San Miguel, Inc., L-25134, Oct. 30, 1969)
Actually, the reason is common sense eh – to protect the defendant from unnecessary vexation.
Why create two cases when you have only one cause of action? And why make me spend more?
Magasto yung balik-balik sa court. It becomes an expensive process. And why should you harass
somebody when he only committed one wrong? You file a case against him but do not harass him
more than once. Nemo debet vis vesare procuna em iyadens cusa – “No man shall be twice vexed for one
and the same cause.”
SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
Q: How do you determine the singleness of a cause of action?
A: The singleness of a cause of action is determined by the singleness of the delict or wrong
committed by the defendant and not by the number of remedies that the law grants the injured party.
Meaning, a single delict may give rise to two or more possible remedies but it does not mean to say the
injured party can avail of all those remedies simultaneously or one after another. (Bachrach vs.
Icariñgal, supra; David vs. De la Cruz, L-11656, April 18, 1958)
EXAMPLE: Obligations and Contracts: A violation or a breach of contract could give rise to a civil
action for specific performance or a civil action for rescission of contract. However, it does not mean to
say that the injured party can file both or one after the other. Otherwise, he will be splitting his cause of
action.
EXAMPLE: There is the Recto Law (on Sales) on the remedies of an unpaid seller of personal
properties. I think the law grants three remedies – (1) rescind the contract of sale; (2) exact fulfillment of
obligation; and (3) foreclosure of mortgage. But even the law on Sales is very clear: the choice of one
automatically bars resort to the other because it will be against splitting the cause of action.
EXAMPLE: Credit Transactions: A bank has two (2) possible remedies against a debtor for nonpayment of a loan secured by a mortgaged say, piece of land: (1) foreclose the mortgage on the land; or
(2) file an action to collect the loan. Here, the bank cannot file a case the debtor to collect the loan and at
the same time file an action to foreclose the mortgage for it will be splitting the cause of action. So it is
either you enforce the principal contract of loan, or, you enforce the accessory contract of mortgage.
This is what happened in the case of
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
66
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
DANAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
154 SCRA 446
FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from the bank, mortgaged their property
and then they failed to pay. The bank filed a civil action to collect the loan. After filing a civil
action to collect the loan, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the mortgage.
HELD: “Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid down the rule that a
mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal action for
debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may pursue either of the
two remedies, but not both.”
“Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in filing a civil action against the
Danao spouses and subsequently resorting to the complaint of foreclosure proceedings, are
not only a demonstration of the prohibited splitting up of a cause of action but also of the
resulting vexation and oppression to the debtor.”
So those are examples of splitting a cause of action and illustrations of the rule that one cause of
action may give rise to two or more remedies but it does not follow that you can avail of all those
remedies. One is enough, otherwise, you will be splitting again you cause of action.
RULES IN DETERMINING THE SINGLENESS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION
Now, with respect to splitting a cause of action, you must familiarize 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 get confused, ‘ano ba ito?
Isa lang ba ito o more than one?’
RULE #1 (General Rule):
A contract embraces only one cause of action because it may be
violated only once, even if it contains several stipulations. (Quioque vs.
Bautista, L-13159, Feb. 28, 1962)
EXAMPLE: Pauline enters into a contract with Nudj which contains 3 stipulations: (#1) that next
month, Pauline will deliver to Nudj 100 sacks of rice; (#2) on the same date, Pauline will also deliver to
Nudj 100 sacks of corn; and (#3) on the same date, Pauline will also deliver to Nudj 100 sacks of sugar.
When the day arrived, nothing was delivered. So three stipulations were violated.
Q: How many causes of action does Nudj have against Pauline?
A: ONE. 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 paragraphs violated but on the contract itself.
RULE #2 (Exception to the General Rule):
A contract which provides for several stipulations to be performed at
different times gives rise to as many causes of action as there are
violations. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)
EXAMPLE: A loan with a promissory note where the principal amount is payable in installment.
There is one promissory note where the loan is P300,000. And then the first installment is payable this
year (1997). And then the second installment is payable in 1998 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.
For non- payment of the first installment this year (1997), the creditor can file one case. So P100,000
for 1997 – one cause of action.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
67
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
Q: Next year, he did not pay the second installment, can the creditor file another case?
A: YES, because this time it is the exception. Every installment is one cause of action even if there is
only one note. Remember that they are to be performed at different times.
RULE #3 (Exception to the exception):
All obligations which have matured at the time of the suit must be
integrated as one cause of action in one complaint, and those not so
included would be barred. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53 Phil. 923)
EXAMPLE: In 1997, the debtor did not pay but the creditor did not file any case, pinabayaan lang
niya. Then in 1998, the second installment was not also paid. So dalawa na. The total claim now is
P200,000. So the creditor said, there are two unpaid installments—1997 and 1998! So dalawa na, I will
file two cases.”
Q: Is the creditor correct?
A: He is wrong. Isahin mo na lang yan. When 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, everything must be integrated. So there should only be one complaint
for P200,000 representing the first and second installments. If 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 2. You should
only file one action for P300,000 and you go back to the general rule.
RULE #4 (Exception to Rule #2):
However, when the failure to comply with one of several stipulations
in a continuing contract constitutes a total breach, a single cause of action
for damages, actual as well as prospective, arises from such breach.
(Blossom & Co. vs. Manila Gas Corp., 55 Phil. 226)
EXAMPLE: This year the first installment fell due. So the creditor demanded payment for the first
installment from the debtor which the latter denied,! The signature in the note is not mine!”
Now, in that kind of statement, he is not only repudiating the first installment. He is repudiating
the entire note. So under rule #4, the creditor can file a case for the entire loan of P300,000 because it
has been repudiated. If you only file only one for the P100,000 which fell due, then next year, file na
naman, it will be useless because he will still maintain the same position, “Wala akong utang sa iyo!
Tigas ng ulo!” So you do not wait anymore for the 2nd and 3rd installments to fall due. You file only
one case for the entire breach. There is a total breach for a continuing obligation and there is now only
one cause of action for the entire promissory note
So theses are the basic principles of cause of action that I want you to remember.
JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
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:
x x x x x
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 (opening paragraph of Section 5)
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
68
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
Q: What do you mean by joinder of causes of action?
A: Joinder of causes of action is the provision of the Rules which allows a party to join in one
pleading two or more causes of actions against the opposing party.
PROBLEM: In 1994, the debtor secured a loan of P50,000 payable in 1997. In 1995, a second loan of
P50,000 payable in 1997 and then in 1996, another loan of P50,000 payable in 1997. So there are three
debts that will fall due in 1997. In 1997 when they became due, the creditor filed 3 cases against the
debtor – one case for every promissory note.
Q: Were the cases properly filed?
A: YES because there were 3 promissory notes. But the creditor can file one complaint to join the
three loans. This is called joinder of causes of action. This is different from the case of an installment
where there is only one loan although payable in three installments.
In the problem above, there are 3 loans, 3 promissory notes in 3 different years. So there are 3
causes of action. And when you file one case for every promissory note, you are not violating the rule
against splitting a cause of action. You are actually not filing more than one case because there is one
case for every loan. However, while you are allowed to file three cases, Section 5 allows you to file only
one case and that is called joinder of causes of action.
THE PRINCIPLE: You 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.
Q: Under Section 5, is the creditor obliged to file one complaint for the 3 promissory notes?
A: NO, because joinder of causes of action is permissive. He may or may not. So the creditor may
file 3 complaints for the 3 promissory notes, or, file only one complaint asserting the 3 claims for the 3
promissory notes.
ALTERNATIVE and CUMULATIVE Joinder of Causes of Action
Q: How may causes of action be joined?
A: Causes of action may be joined either: (a) alternatively or (b) cumulatively.
An ALTERNATIVE JOINDER exists when your cause of action is either one or the other. You are
not seeking relief from both but either one.
A CUMULATIVE JOINDER exists when you are seeking relief for all your causes of action.
ALTERNATIVE joinder; Example:
Aileen is the importer of the goods that were shipped on board a carrier. Upon reaching
Davao City, they were departed with the arrastre or stevedoring operator. The goods were
delivered to Aileen in a damaged condition, and then reklamo siya sa arrastre or stevedoring.
Then the arraster says, “Damaged na dati yan when it was unloaded from the carrier.” Then
when Aileen went to the carrier, Carrier: “No, the damage happened in their (arrastre’s)
custody.”
Now, the Aileen here has two (2) possible causes of action: (1) an action against the
stevedoring operator under the contract of depositary under the law on Credit Transaction; Or,
(2) an action against the carrier under the Law on Transportation. So there are 2 possible causes
of action.
Q: Can Aileen file a complaint incorporating the two (arrastre and the carrier) both as
defendants?
A: YES, that is allowed. This is alternative joinder because Aileen is not claiming from both
of them, but either one or the other. Aileen is not sure so she decided to file a case against both
of them. At least isa sa kanila matamaan man ba.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
69
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
ALTERNATIVE joinder; Another Example:
Chams is a passenger riding on a public utility vehicle which collided with another vehicle
and she is not sure who is at fault. If the fault lies with the other vehicle, and the driver of the
bus where Chams was riding is not at fault, then her cause of action against the other vehicle is
quasi-delict. But if the fault lies with the driver of the bus where she was riding, her cause of
action is culpa contractual. So she has 2 possible causes of action.
Q: Is it possible for Chams to file one complaint naming both the drivers or both operators
as defendants?
A: YES. Either of them is liable to her. That is alternative joinder of causes of action.
CUMULATIVE JOINDER; Example:
Pches, who is forever on a diet, files a case to collect 3 unpaid promissory notes from the
John “The Yellow Man”. Pches is not claiming from either promissory notes but she is claiming
all.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Roy “The Councilor,” an illegitimate child files a case against his
father for compulsory acknowledgment as illegitimate child and support. There are two causes
of action which are gained: an action for recognition and also for support. This is not alternative
actions but rather, these are cumulative. The child is asking for BOTH relief.
That is why the manner of joining the defendants alternatively or otherwise should be correlated
with Rule 3, Section 13 and Rule 8, Section 2:
RULE
against
of them
one may
3, SEC. 13. Alternative defendants. - Where the plaintiff is uncertain
who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all
as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against
be inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. (13a)
RULE 8, SEC. 2. Alternative causes of action or defenses. - A party may set
forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes
of action or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative
and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not
made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative
statements. (2)
Q: When is joinder of causes of action allowed?
A: Under Section 5, joinder of causes of action is allowed under the following conditions:
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules;
c.) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the
causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
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. (5a)
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties
We will meet joinder of parties when we reach Rule 3, Section 6 which provides that two (2) or
more persons can join as plaintiffs in one complaint or can be joined as defendants in one complaint,
provided there is a common question of fact or law involved in that case.
EXAMPLE: Two or more passengers riding on the same bus, met an accident. All of them were
injured. So lahat sila may cause of action noh? Every passenger who gets injured has a cause of action.
So they decided to file a damage suit.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
70
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
Q: Can they be joined in one complaint?
A: YES because there is a common question of fact or law. They are riding on the same bus, meeting
the same accident, against the same operator. So there is a joinder of parties under Rule 3. And if the
joinder of parties under Rule 3 is proper, then their causes of action can also be joined under Rule 2
because the condition is: “shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties.”
Q: Suppose these passengers were riding on different buses owned by the one operator. They are
on different trips. One is going to Mati; one is going to General Santos; and one is going to Cotabato.
All of them met an accident. Well of course the same kind of case: damage suit, breach of contract
against the same operator. Now, can their causes of action be joined?
A: NO. They cannot be joined because there is no common question of fact or law. The defense of
the operator here is different from his defense there. Meaning, passenger A has nothing to do with the
complaint of passenger B because there is no common denominator between them. So if you cannot
join them under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of action under Rule 2 is also improper.
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
or actions governed by special rules
So, a joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by special rules. The reason
here is simple: Special Civil Actions are governed by certain rules which do not apply to ordinary civil
actions. So a special civil action cannot be joined with an ordinary civil action, or, an ordinary civil
action cannot be joined with an action governed by special rules such as Election cases, naturalization
cases, insolvency cases. In the 1983 case of
UNION GLASS AND CONTAINER CORP. vs. SEC
126 SCRA 31
FACTS: (This is still a good ruling) A stockholder of a corporation who is also the
creditor of the corporation decided to file one complaint against the corporation asserting
several causes of action, among them is his rights as a stockholder under the Corporation
Code and also his rights as a creditor under the Civil Code.
HELD: The joinder is improper. In the first place, one is governed by a quasi-judicial
body (SEC). So how can the RTC try a case when the cause of action is pertaining to the SEC
and it is governed by the special rules of the SEC? So you cannot join that.
c.) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of action
falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein
PROBLEM: Maceste encroached on two parcels of land belonging to me. In one parcel of land, the
assessed value of that is only P20,000. In another parcel of land, the assessed vaue is P1 million. I would
like to file a case of action publiciana against him. Dalawa eh – there are 2 lands encroached. The first
accion publiciana is triable by the MTC (P20,000). The other accion publiciana is triable by the RTC.
Q: Can I join them?
A: YES, and it must be filed it in the RTC. The jurisdiction of the RTC will prevail.
PROBLEM: Maceste encroached on my land in Tagum with an assessed value of P20,000. And then
he encroached in another land of mine in Davao City with an assessed value of P1 million. You will
notice that in the Tagum land, the jurisdiction is in the MTC for the case accion publiciana and the
venue is Tagum because the property is situated there. In the other case, the jurisdiction is in the RTC
and the venue is Davao City.
Q: Can I file a case against Maceste joining the 2 cases?
A: YES.
Q: Where is now the governing venue?
A: The venue of the RTC case prevails. Therefore, the case must be filed in Davao City.
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
71
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
PROBLEM: Maceste encroached on my land in Tagum with an assessed value of P1 million. And
then he encroached in another land of mine in Davao City with an assessed value of P1 million also.
You will notice that in the Tagum land, the jurisdiction is RTC for the case accion publiciana. In the
other case, the jurisdiction is also in the RTC of Davao City. So both actions, RTC.
Q: In which RTC will you file the case joining the causes of action?
A: Either Tagum or Davao City because both are RTCs.
PROBLEM: Maceste encroached on my land in Tagum with an assessed value of P20,000. And then
he encroached in another land of mine in Davao City with an assessed value of P20,000 also. In the
Tagum land, the jurisdiction is MTC for the case accion publiciana. In the other case, the jurisdiction is
also in the MTC. So both actions, MTC.
Q: Can I join in one complaint the 2 actions?
A: NO, because the law says provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said
court and the venue lies therein. One of them belongs to the RTC. In the example, both belong to the
MTC.
PROBLEM: Maceste encroached on my land more than one year ago and the land has an assessed
value of only P20,000. So if I will file an accion publiciana, it has to be filed with the MTC. On the other
hand, Aaron encroached my other parcel of land more than one year ago and the assessed value of the
land is P1 million. So my cause of action there is also accion publiciana but triable by the RTC. so I
decided to file a case naming both of them as defendants.
Q: Can they be joined under Section 5?
A: NO. The law allows only if it is between the same parties. This time the parties are not the same.
Plus the fact that you might violate paragraph [a] – there is no common question of fact and law
between them.
PROBLEM: Maceste encroached on my land in Davao City on month ago and then he encroached
on another land of mine (assessed value of P1 million) in Davao City two years ago. Therefore, one case
is forcible entry triable by the MTC and the latter is accion publiciana triable by the RTC.
Q: Can I join them under paragraph [c] although they belong to MTC and RTC?
A: NO, you cannot join them because of paragraph [b] – a forcible entry is special civil action which
is also governed by the Summary Procedure. You cannot join a special civil action. So what is violated
here is not paragraph [c] but paragraph [b].
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
The last is only a repetition of the old rule: TOTALITY RULE. There is nothing new here. So
judiciary law, totality rule, basta sums of money.
SEC. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. - Misjoinder of causes of action is
not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on
motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded
with separately. (n)
There is misjoinder when two (2) or more causes of action where joined in one complaint when they
should no be joined.
EXAMPLE: A case joining an accion publiciana case and a forcible entry case which is not proper
because a special civil action (forcible entry) cannot be joined. In this case there is misjoinder of causes
of action.
Under Section 6, if there is misjoinder, you do not dismiss the case. The remedy is to ask the court
that the misjoined case be severed and tried separately. Now, ang counterpart nito which is still present
is misjoinder of parties under Rule 3, Section 11:
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
72
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition < DRAFT COPY; Please check for errors >
Rule 02
Cause of Action
RULE 3, Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. - Neither misjoinder
nor non-joinder of parties ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be
dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. A claim
against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately. (11a)
So misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action are not grounds for dismissal of an
action. Just remove the misjoined cause of action or the misjoined party.

published by
LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion •
Joseph Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo •
Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina Sison •
Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora •
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena
SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao •
Melody Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera •
Marlon Cascuejo • Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao
• Ilai Llena • Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili
LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin •
Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin •
Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos •
Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco •
Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos • Joshua Tan •
Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA
73