Flores v.

Mallare-Philipps
Rules Applicable: permissive joinder of parties under Section 6 of Rule 3

FACTS:
• December 15, 1983, counsel for respondent Binongcal filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction since the amount of the demand was only P11,643.00
• for refusing to pay P11,643.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit August to October,
1981)
• Fernando Calion allegedly indebted to petitioner in the amount of P10,212.00 joined in moving for the dismissal
of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
o for allegedly refusing to pay P10,212.00 representing cost of truck tires which he purchased on credit
(March, 1981 to January, 1982)
• Counsel for petitioner opposed the Motion to Dismiss
• RTC: dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
• Petitioner has appealed by certiorari from the order of Judge Heilia S. Mallare-Phillipps of the Regional Trial
Court of Baguio City and Benguet Province which dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
o Section 19(8) of BP129 the regional trial court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction if the amount of
the demand is more than P20,000.00

ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

HELD: No. order appealed from is affirmed

• In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants, under Section 6 of Rule 3, the
total of all the claims shall now furnish the jurisdictional test.
• Needless to state, if the causes of action are separate and independent, their joinder in one complaint is
permissive and not mandatory, and any cause of action where the amount of the demand is twenty thousand
pesos or less may be the subject of a separate complaint filed with a metropolitan or municipal trial court.
• In the case at bar, the lower court correctly held that the jurisdictional test is subject to the rules on joinder of
parties pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 2 and Section 6 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court and that, after a careful
scrutiny of the complaint, it appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against
respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its jurisdiction.