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.
2.
3.
4.

a RIGHT pertaining to the plaintiff;

a CORRELATIVE OBLIGATIONS of the defendants;
a VIOLATION of plaintiffs right; and
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 sustained. So that is part of the definition of
cause of action. Damage without injury does not create any cause of action.

JBD

62

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. Lets 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 so-called 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)
Q: What are the ELEMENTS of a right of action?
A: There are two (2) elements:

JBD

63

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 carriers 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;
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)

JBD

64

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.
Icarigal, 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 attorneys 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 attorneys 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 doctors 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)

Q: And what are the effects of splitting a cause of action?

A: Under Section 4, the following are the effects:

JBD

65

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. Icarigal, 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. Icarigal, supra; David vs. De la Cruz, L11656, 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 non-payment 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

JBD

66

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.

JBD

67

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.
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
installments1997 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

JBD

68

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)
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 (arrastres) 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.

JBD

69

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 3, SEC. 13. Alternative defendants. - Where the plaintiff is uncertain
against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all
of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one
may 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

JBD

70

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.
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 quasijudicial 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.

JBD

71

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.
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)

JBD

72

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:
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.

JBD

73