A: NO, the RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over

the case. The joinder of the causes of action

against A and B is not proper. For a joinder of
causes of action against several defendants to
be proper, the joinder must comply with the
rules on joinder of the parties under Sec. 6 of
Rule 3. This rule requires that the causes of
action joined should arise out of the same
transactions and there exists a question of law
or facts common to both. These requirements
are not met under the facts.
Since the causes of action cannot be joined,
each action must be the subject of a separate
action. The totality rule has no application
under the facts of the case. The amount of each
claim falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Q: Can there be a valid judgment in case of
misjoined causes of action?
A: YES. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a
ground for dismissal. The courts have the
power, acting upon the motion of a party to the
case or sua sponte, to order the severance of
the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded
with separately. However, if there is no
objection to the improper joinder or the court
did not motu proprio direct a severance, then
there exists no bar in the simultaneous
adjudication of all the erroneously joined
causes of action.
The foregoing rule only applies if the court
trying the case has jurisdiction over all of the
causes of action therein notwithstanding the
misjoinder of the same. If the court trying the
case has no jurisdiction over a misjoined cause
of action, then such misjoined cause of action
has to be severed, any adjudication rendered
by the court with respect to the same would be
a nullity. (Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435, August
13, 2012)
Splitting of cause of action vs. Joinder of
causes of action
SPLITTING OF
CAUSE OF ACTION
JOINDER OF CAUSES
OF ACTION
It is the practice of
dividing one cause of
action into different
parts and making
each part the subject
of a separate
complaint. (Bachrach
v. Icaringal, 68 Phil.
287)
Assertion of as many
causes of action as a
party may have
against another in one
pleading alone. (Sec. 5,
Rule 2)
Prohibited. A party
may not institute
more than one suit for
a single cause of
action. (Sec. 3, Rule 2)
Encouraged. No
sanction against nonjoinder
of separate
causes of action since
a plaintiff needs only
a single cause of
action to maintain an
action.
It causes multiplicity
of suits and double
vexation on the part
of the defendant.
(Riano, 2014)
It minimizes
multiplicity of suits
and inconvenience on
the parties.
The filing of one (litis
pendentia) or a
judgment upon the
merits in any one (res
judicata) is available
as a ground for the
dismissal of the
others. (Sec. 4, Rule 2)
No adverse effect on
the action.
Civil Procedure
43
Joinder of causes of action vs. Joinder of
parties
JOINDER OF CAUSES
OF ACTION
JOINDER OF
PARTIES
It refers to the
procedural device
whereby a party who
asserts various claims
against the same or
several parties, file all
his claims against
them in a single
complaint.
It may be employed
when there are
various causes of
actions that accrue in
favor of one or more
plaintiffs against one
or more defendants
i.e. there is plurality of
parties.
It will not necessarily
involve a joinder of
parties.
It may or may not be
involved in a joinder
of causes of actions.
(Riano, 2014)
Merely permissive, as
evidenced by the use
of the word “may”
instead of “shall.” (Sec.
5, Rule 2; Riano, 2014)
(1999 BAR)
Indispensable parties –
required to be joined
either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (Sec. 7,
Rule 3)
Necessary party – one
who is not
indispensable but
ought to be joined if
complete relief is to
be accorded, or for a
complete
determination or
settlement of the
action. (Sec. 8, Rule 3)
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS
Who may be parties to a civil action
1. Natural persons;
2. Juridical persons:
a. The State and its political subdivisions;
b. Other corporations, institutions and
entities for public interest or purpose,
created by law; and
c. Corporations, partnerships and
associations for private interest or
purpose to which the law grants a
juridical personality, separate and
distinct from that of each shareholder,
partner or member (Art. 44, NCC);
3. Entities authorized by law:
a. Corporation by estoppel is precluded
from denying its existence and the
members thereof can be sued and be
held liable as general partners (Sec. 21,
Corporation Code);
b. A contract of partnership having a
capital of three thousand pesos or more
but which fails to comply with the
registration requirements is
nevertheless liable as a partnership to
third persons (Art. 1772 in relation to
Art. 1768, NCC);
c. Estate of a deceased person (Limjoco v.
Intestate Estate of Fragante, G.R. No. L-
770, April 27, 1948);
d. A legitimate labor organization may sue
and be sued in its registered name (Art.
242[e], Labor Code of the Philippines);
e. The Roman Catholic Church may be a
party and as to its properties, the
archbishop or diocese to which they
belong (Versoza v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-
25264, November 22, 1926); and
f. A dissolved corporation may prosecute
and defend suits by or against it
provided that the suits:
i. Occur within three (3) years
after its dissolution; and
ii. The suits are in connection
with the settlement and
closure of its affairs. (Sec. 112,
Corporation Code)
Action if the party impleaded is not
authorized to be a party
It can be raised as an affirmative defense based
on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiff not authorized – the ground that
“the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.”
(Sec.12[a], Rule 8, 2019 Amendments to the
Rules of Civil Procedure)
2. Defendant not authorized – the ground
that the “pleading asserting a claim states no
cause of action.” (Sec.12(a), Rule 8, 2019
Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure)
NOTE: A complaint cannot possibly state a
cause of action against one who cannot be a
party to a civil action. (Riano, 2014)
REMEDIAL LAW
44
U NIVERSITYOFSANTOTOMAS
2 02 1G OLDENN OTES
Lack of legal capacity to sue vs. Lack of legal
personality to sue
LACK OF LEGAL
CAPACITY TO SUE
LACK OF LEGAL
PERSONALITY TO
SUE
It refers to plaintiff’s
general disability to
sue such as on
account of minority,
insanity,
incompetence, lack of
juridical personality
or any other general
disqualifications of a
party. (Columbia
Pictures, Inc. v. CA, G.R.
No. 110318, August 28,
1996)
The plaintiff is not the
real party in interest.
(Columbia Pictures,
Inc. v. CA, supra.)
Remedy: File an
answer and raise as
an affirmative defense
lack of capacity to sue.
(Sec. 12, Rule 8, 2019
Amendments to the
Rules of Civil
Procedure )
Remedy: File an
answer and raise as
an affirmative defense
that the complaint
states no cause of
action. (Sec. 12, Rule 8,
supra.)
Rules with regard to the right of a foreign
corporation to bring suit in Philippine
courts
1. If it does business in the Philippines with the
required license, it can sue before Philippine
courts on any transaction. (Agilent
Technologies v. Integrated Silicon, G.R. No.
154618, April 14, 2004)
2. If it does business in the Philippines without
a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine
courts. (Id.)
3. If it is not doing business in the Philippines,
it needs no license to sue before Philippine
courts on an isolated transaction or on a
cause of action entirely independent of any
business transaction. (Id.)
4. If it is without license to do business and is
not doing business in the Philippines is not
disqualified from filing and prosecuting an
action for unfair competition and may be
sued for acts done against a person or
persons in the Philippines, or may be sued in
Philippine Courts.
5. If it does business in the Philippines without
license, a Philippine citizen or entity which
has contracted with said corporation may be
estopped from challenging the foreign
corporation’s corporate personality in a suit
brought before Philippine courts. (Herrera,
2007)
Rule on spouses as parties
GR: Husband and wife shall sue or be sued
jointly, except as provided by law. (Sec. 4, Rule
3)
NOTE: Husband and wife shall sue and be sued
jointly inasmuch as both are co-administrators
of the community property under the system of
absolute community of property, as well as the
conjugal partnership property. (Feria & Noche,
2013)
XPNs:
1. Arts. 101 & 108, Family Code (FC) - A
spouse without just cause abandons the
other or fails to comply with his or her
obligations to the family with respect to
marital, parental or property relations;
2. Art. 111, FC - A spouse of age mortgages,
encumbers, alienates or otherwise disposes
of his or her exclusive property;
3. Art. 145, FC - The regime of separation of
property governs the property relations
between spouses.
NOTE: In the foregoing exceptions, the
presentation of the final judgment against the
guilty or absent spouse shall be sufficient
basis for the grant of the decree of judicial
separation of property.
Despite the separation of property, one
spouse may end up being sued and held
answerable for the liabilities incurred by the
other spouse because “the liability of the
spouses to creditors for family expenses,
however, be solidary.” (Riano, 2014, citing
Art. 146, Family Code of the Philippines)
4. Art. 135 - Any of the following shall be