1

JOINDER OF JOINDER OF SPLITTING MISJOINDER

PARTIES CAUSES OF
ACTION
It MAY BE EMPLOYED when ASSERTION of as It is the practice of There is a misjoinder when two
there are VARIOUS many causes of DIVIDING ONE CAUSE of or more causes of action WERE
CAUSES OF ACTIONS action as a party
may have against
action INTO JOINED in one complaint when
THAT ACCRUE in favor of another in ONE DIFFERENT PARTS THEY SHOULD NOT BE SO
JOINED..
one or more plaintiffs and making each part the
AGAINST one or more PLEADING subject of a separate
defendants i.e. there is ALONE. (Sec. 5, complaint. (Bachrach v.
plurality of parties Rule 2 Icaringal, 68 Phil. 287)
It MAY OR MAY NOT be ENCOURAGED. No PROHIBITED. A party may This is NOT A GROUND for
involved in a joinder of sanction against not institute more than dismissal of an action
causes of actions. (Riano, nonjoinder of one suit for a single cause
2014) separate causes of of action. (Sec. 3, Rule 2)
action since a
plaintiff needs only
a single cause of
action to maintain
an action
Indispensable parties – It MINIMIZES It CAUSES MULTIPLICITY There is NO SANCTION
REQUIRED TO BE JOINED MULTIPLICITY OF OF SUITS and double against non-joinder of separate
either as plaintiffs or SUITS and vexation on the part of causes of action. HOWEVER, if
defendants. (Sec. 7, Rule 3) inconvenience on the defendant. (Riano, the plaintiff refuses to sever the
the parties 2014 misjoined cause of action, the
Necessary party – one who is COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED
not indispensable but pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 17 of the
OUGHT TO BE JOINED if 2019 Amendments to the
complete relief is to be Revised Rules on Civil Procedure,)
accorded, or for a complete
determination or settlement
of the action. (Sec. 8, Rule 3)
No adverse effect The filing of one (litis A MISJOINED CAUSE OF ACTION
on the action pendentia) or a judgment may, on motion of a party or on
upon the merits in any the initiative of the court, BE
one (res judicata) is SEVERED AND PROCEEDED WITH
available as a GROUND SEPARATELY by filing a motion in
FOR THE DISMISSAL OF relation thereto. (Sec. 6, Rule 2)
THE OTHERS. (Sec. 4, Rule
2)
 2

SPLITTING OF CAUSE OF JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF COMPULSORY AND MISJOINDER

ACTION CAUSES OF ACTION PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF AND NON-
PARTIES JOINDER OF
PARTIES

Joinder of causes of action (2005 COMPULSORY JOINDER The Rules

It is the ACT
of
BAR)
INSTITUTING TWO OR OF PARTIES (2009 BAR) The PROHIBIT the
joinder of parties becomes DISMISSAL of a
MORE SUITS on the basis It is the ASSERTION of as many
compulsory WHEN THE ONE suit on the
of the same cause of causes of action a party may have INVOLVED IS AN ground of non-
action. (Sec. 4, Rule 2) against another in ONE INDISPENSABLE PARTY. (Riano, joinder or
PLEADING ALONE. (Sec. 5, Rule 2014) misjoinder of

It ACT OF
is the 2) parties AND
The plaintiff is mandated to ALLOWS the
DIVIDING a single or It is the process of uniting two or implead all the indispensable amendment of
indivisible cause of action more demands OR rights of action parties, considering that the the complaint
into several parts or claims in one action. (Riano, 2019, citing absence of one such party AT ANY STAGE
and bringing several actions Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. renders all subsequent action OF THE
thereon. (Riano 2014, citing No. 192073, September 11, 2013) of the court null and void for PROCEEDINGS,
Quadra v. Court of Appeals, want of authority to act, not THROUGH
G.R. No. 147593, July 31, REQUISITES OF JOINDER OF only as to the absent parties MOTION OR ON
2006) but even as to those present. ORDER OF THE
CAUSES OF ACTION One who is a party to a case is COURT ON ITS
This practice, which not bound by any decision of OWN
1. The party shall COMPLY WITH the court; otherwise, he will be
APPLIES not only to THE RULES on joinder of parties deprived of his right to due
INITIATIVE. (Sec.
11, Rule 3;
complaints but ALSO TO (Sec. 6, Rule 3): process. (Sepulveda, Sr. v. Republic. v.
COUNTERCLAIMS AND Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195, Sandiganbayan,
CROSS-CLAIMS, is a. RIGHT TO RELIEF EXISTS IN January 31, 2005) G.R. No. 152154,
discouraged. FAVOR of OR AGAINST several July 15, 2003)
persons; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO JOIN
RATIONALE b. Right to relief ARISES OUT of the AN INDISPENSABLE However, when
SAME transaction OR SERIES of the ORDER OF
transaction; and PARTY (2015, 2017 BAR)
1. Breeds multiplicity of THE COURT to
suits; c. There is COMMON QUESTION of implead an
law of law OR fact. The presence of indispensable
parties is a condition for the indispensable
2. Clogs the court dockets; party GOES
2. The joinder shall NOT INCLUDE exercise of juridical power and UNHEEDED, the
3. Leads to vexatious special civil actions governed by when an indispensable party is court may order
special rules; not before the court, the action
litigation; the DISMISSAL
should be dismissed. (Riano,
2014, citing Lucman v. Malawi, of the case.
4. Operates as an 3. Where the CAUSES OF
G.R. No. 159794, December 19,
instrument of harassment; ACTION are between the same 2006) The court is fully
and Civil Procedure 41 parties BUT pertain to different clothed with the
venues OR jurisdictions, the HOWEVER, an OUTRIGHT authority to
5. Generates unnecessary dismiss a
joinder may be allowed in the RTC DISMISSAL IS NOT THE
expenses to the parties. complaint due
(Riano, 2014) (1999, 2005 PROVIDED ONE of the causes of IMMEDIATE REMEDY to the fault of
BAR) action falls within the jurisdiction AUTHORIZED because, under
the plaintiff as
of said court AND venue lies the Rules, misjoinder/non-
when, among
therein; and joinder of parties is NOT A others, he does
4. Totality Test - Where claims in all
GROUND for dismissal. It is not comply with
causes of action ARE PRINCIPALLY when the order of the court to the order of the
FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY, the implead an indispensable party court. (Riano,
goes unheeded may the case 2014, citing Sec.
AGGREGATE AMOUNT claimed shall
be the test for jurisdiction. (Sec. 5, be dismissed. In such case, the 3, Rule 17;
court may dismiss the Plasabas v. CA,
Rule 2) (2002 BAR)
complaint due to the fault of G.R. No. 166519,
the plaintiff as when he does March 21, 2009)
not comply with any order of
the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17) such
 3

NOTE: A joinder of causes of action as an order to join

NOTE: The rule is ONLY PERMISSIVE, not indispensable parties. (Riano,
against splitting compulsory; hence, a party may 2014, citing Plasabas v. CA, G.R.
desire to file a single suit for each of No. 166519, March 31, 2009)
of causes of his claims. (Riano, 2014)
action is not altogether Joinder of claims in small claims
EFFECT OF NON-JOINDER OF A
one of original right but is NECESSARY PARTY
cases The plaintiff may join, in a
one of interposition
single statement of claim, one or 1. The COURT MAY ORDER the
BASED UPON more separate small claims against inclusion of the omitted
principles of public a defendant PROVIDED that the necessary party if jurisdiction
policy and of equity to total amount claimed, exclusive of
interest and costs, does not exceed
over his person may be
prevent the inconvenience obtained;
₱300,000. (Sec. 8, A.M. No. 08-8-7-
and hardship incident to
SC, as amended) 2. The FAILURE TO COMPLY
repeated and unnecessary
litigation. (BPI Family with the order for his inclusion,
MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF without justifiable cause, shall
Savings Bank, Inc. v. Vda de
ACTION be DEEMED A WAIVER of the
Coscolluela, G.R. No.
167724, June 27, 2006) claim against such party;
There is a misjoinder when two or
more causes of action were joined 3. The non-inclusion of a
in one complaint when they necessary party DOES NOT
EFFECT OF SPLITTING A
CAUSE OF ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE so joined. PREVENT THE COURT FROM
This is not a ground for dismissal of PROCEEDING IN THE ACTION,
an action. and the judgment rendered
If two or more suits are
therein shall be without
instituted on the basis of
A misjoined cause of action may, on prejudice to the rights of such
the same cause of action,
MOTION of a party or on the necessary party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3)
the filing of one or a
INITIATIVE of the court, be severed
judgment upon the merits
and proceeded with separately by PERMISSIVE JOINDER
in any one is available as a
filing a motion in relation thereto.
ground for the dismissal of
(Sec. 6, Rule 2)
OF PARTIES
the others. (Sec. 4, Rule 2)
There is NO SANCTION AGAINST
REMEDIES AGAINST NON-JOINDER of separate causes of Requisites of permissive
SPLITTING CAUSE OF action. HOWEVER, if the plaintiff joinder of parties (2002 BAR)
ACTION refuses to sever the misjoined cause
1. Right to relief ARISES OUT of
of action, the complaint may be
the SAME transaction OR
dismissed pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule
The defendant may file a 17 of the 2019 Amendments to the SERIES of transactions
motion to dismiss based on Revised Rules on Crivil Procedure, (connected with the same
either of the following subject matter of the suit); and
grounds:
1. Litis pendentia – that Q: P SUED A AND B IN ONE 2. There is a QUESTION OF LAW
there is another action COMPLAINT IN THE RTC-MANILA, OR FACT COMMON TO ALL the
pending between the same THE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A plaintiffs or defendants.
parties for the same cause; BEING AN OVERDUE PROMISSORY
or NOTE FOR P300,000 AND THAT NOTE: There is a question
AGAINST B BEING AN ALLEGED of law in a given case when
2. Res judicata, if the first BALANCE OF P300,00 ON THE
action has already been PURCHASE OF GOODS SOLD ON the DOUBT OR
terminated – that the cause CREDIT. DOES THE RTCMANILA DIFFERENCE arises as to
of action is barred by a prior HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE what the law is on a certain
judgment or by the statute CASE? (2002 BAR) state of facts;
of limitations. (Section
12[a], Rule 15, Rules of A: NO, the RTC-Manila has no there is a question of fact
Court 2020) jurisdiction over the case. The when DOUBT ARISES as to
joinder of the causes of action
the TRUTH OR THE
against A and B is not proper. For a
joinder of causes of action against FALSEHOOD of alleged
several defendants to be proper, facts. (Manila Bay Club Corp. v.

RATIONALE
1. PREVENT REPEATED
LITIGATION between the
same parties in regard to
the same subject or
controversy;
2. PROTECT THE
DEFENDANT from
unnecessary vexation.
Nemo debet vexare pro una
et eadem causa (No man
shall be twice vexed for one
and the same cause); and
3. AVOID THE COSTS AND
EXPENSES incident to
numerous suits. (City of
Bacolod v. SM Brewery, G.R.
No. L-25134, October 30,
1969)
NOTE: Litis pendentia and
forum shopping HAVE
SIMILAR ELEMENTS, so IT IS
BEST FOR THE COUNSEL TO
MOVE for the dismissal
based on forum shopping
under Sec. 5, Rule 7 instead,
and show that the party or
his counsel willfully and
deliberately resorted to
forum shopping.
This is because the effect is
a DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE, in addition The FOREGOING RULE only applies order the pleader TO JOIN THE
to the sanction for direct if the court trying the case HAS OMITTED PARTY if jurisdiction
contempt as w
4
the joinder must comply with the CA, et al., G.R. No. 110015,
rules on joinder of the parties under January 11, 1995)
Sec. 6 of Rule 3. This rule requires
that the causes of action joined
should arise out of the same RATIONALE of permissive
transactions and there exists a
joinder of parties
question of law or facts common to
both. These requirements are not
The PURPOSE AND AIM of the
met under the facts. Since the
principle is to have
causes of action cannot be joined,
controversies and the matters
each action must be the subject of a
directly related thereto
separate action. The totality rule
SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL
has no application under the facts
once they are brought to the
of the case. The amount of each
courts for determination.
claim falls within the jurisdiction of
the MTC.
Litigation is costly both to
litigants and to the State, and
Q: CAN THERE BE A VALID
the objective of procedure is to
JUDGMENT IN CASE OF MISJOINED
limit its number or extent.
CAUSES OF ACTION?
In consonance with the above
A: YES. Misjoinder of causes of
principle, we have the rules
action is not a ground for dismissal.
against multiplicity of suits, the
The COURTS HAVE THE POWER,
acting upon the motion of a party to
rule of estoppel by judgment
(Sec. 44, Rule 39), and the rule
the case or sua sponte, to order the
of res judicata. (Sec. 45, Rule
severance of the misjoined cause of
39; Fajardo v. Bayano, G.R. No.
action to be proceeded with
L-8314, March 23, 1956)
separately.
Q: WHEN MAY THE COURT
However, if there is no objection to
ORDER THE JOINDER OF A
the improper joinder or the court
NECESSARY PARTY? (1998
did not motu proprio direct a
BAR)
severance, then THERE EXISTS NO
BAR in the simultaneous A: IF the REASON given for the
adjudication of all the erroneously NON-JOINDER of the necessary
joined causes of action. party is found by the court to
be UNMERITORIOUS, it may
jurisdiction over all of the causes of over his person may be
action therein notwithstanding the obtained.
misjoinder of the same. If the court
trying the case has NO The failure to comply with the
JURISDICTION over a misjoined order of the court to include a
cause of action, then such necessary party, without
misjoined cause of action HAS TO justifiable cause, shall be
BE SEVERED, any adjudication
rendered by the court with respect
DEEMED A WAIVER of the
claim against such party. (Sec.
to the same would be a NULLITY.
9, Rule 3)
(Ada v. Baylon, G.R. No. 182435,
August 13, 2012)