1.

Flores vs Mallare-Phillips
Facts:
Flores sued the respondents for refusing to pay him certain amount of
money as alleged in the complaint:
-first cause of action alleged in the complaint was against respondent
Ignacio Binongcal for refusing to pay the amount of P11,643.00
representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit
frompetitioner on various occasions from August to October, 1981;
-second cause of action was against respondent Fernando Calion for
allegedly refusing to pay theamount of P10,212.00 representing cost of
truck tires which he purchased on credit from petitioner onseveral
occasions from March, 1981 to January, 1982.
The action was opposed by an action to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Under Sec 19 of BP 129, theregional trial court had exclusive original
jurisdiction if the amount of the demand is more than P20,000.That
although, the other respondent was indebted in the amount of P10,
212.00, his obligation wasseparate and distinct from that of the other
respondent.The trial court by Judge Mallare (one of the respondents)
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.Plaintiff appealed by
certiorari in Supreme Court.
In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional
test is subject to the rules on joinderof parties pursuant to Section 5 of
Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after
acareful scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is amisjoinder of
parties for the reason that theclaims against respondents Binongcal and
Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls withinits
jurisdiction.
Section 6 of Rule 3 which provides as follows:Permissive joinder of
parties.-All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief
inrespect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist,whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in theserules, join as
plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any
question oflaw or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such
defendants may arise in the action;but the court may make such orders
as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendantfrom being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in
whichhe may have no interest

Issue:

WON the trial court correctly ruled on the application of the permissive
joinder of parties under theRules of Court.

Ruling:

In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as

defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, thetotal of all the claims shall now
furnish the jurisdictional test. Needless to state also, if instead of joining
or being joined in one complaint separate actions are filed by or against
the parties, the amount demandedin each complaint shall furnish the
jurisdictional test.