PANTRANCO vs.

STANDARD INSURANCE
Docket Number: GR 140746 Date: March 16, 2005 Ponente: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Topic: RULE 3 Created by: Lance
Petitioners Respondents
PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. and STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and MARTINA
ALEXANDER BUNCAN GICALE
Facts of the Case
 Crispin Gicale was driving a passenger jeepney owned by his mother Martina Gicale.
 While driving north bound along the National Highway in Nueva Ecija, a passenger bus owned by PANTRANCO
was trailing behind Crispin and hit the left rear side of the jeepney and sped away.
 Crispin reported the incident and STANDARD (insurer of the jeepney) paid only P8,000.00 of the the P21,000
total cost, while Martina shouldered the P13,000.00 balance.
 Thereafter, STANDARD and Martina demanded reimbursement from PANTRANCO and Buncan but the latters
refused.
 This prompted Martina and STANDARD to file a complaint for sum of money against PANTRANCO before the
RTC Manila.
 PANTRANCO denied allegations and averred that it is the MeTC , not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over the
case.
 RTC rendered a Decision:
o Judgment in favor the Martina and STANDARD;
o Ordering PANTRANCO and Buncan to pay STANDARD and Martina the amount stated.
 On appeal to the CA, PANTRANCO argued that Martina’s claim of P13,000 and STANDARD’s claim of P8,000.00
INDIVIDUALLY fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC.
 CA rendered a Decision:
o Affirmed the RTC’s ruling
o Did not agree with PANTRANCO’s argument because “in the case at bench, the total of the two claims
is definitely more than P20,000.00 which at the time of the incident in question was the jurisdictional
amount of the RTC.
Issues Ruling

 W/N STANDARD and Martina’s cause of action did not arise from the same transaction? NO

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
 Under Sec. 6, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, provides: (Permissive joinder of parties)

“All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect 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 these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint, where any question of law 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 defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with
any proceedings in which he may have no interest."

 Permissive joinder of parties requires that:

o (a) The right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transaction;
o (b) There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants; and
o (c) Such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on Jurisdiction and Venue.
 In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, PANTRANCO’s bus hitting the rear side of the
Jeepney.
 There is a common question of fact, that is, whether PANTRANCO’s and Buncan are negliegent.
 There being a single transaction and common to both respondents, the have same cause of action against the
petitioners
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.