1.

Topic: Where the claim for damages are not merely incidental to or
consequences of the action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the
complaint
2. Pantranco North Express Inc. and Alexander Buncan v Standard Insurance Co.
and Martina Gicale
3. Nature of Action: petition for review on Certiorari
4. Court of Origin: RTC Manila Branch 94
5. Facts:
 Crispin Gicale was driving the passenger jeepney owned by Martina Gical
(R) on a rainy day and while driving northbound, Pantranco Bus driven
by Alexander Buncan (P) was trailing behind.
 During the curve, Pantranco bus overtook the jeepney and in so doing, hit
the left rear side of the jeepney then sped away
 Crispin reported the incident in Talavera police station and Standard
insurance Co (R) but Standard only paid 8k pesos
 Martina Gicale shouldered the balance of 13,415 pesos
 Respondents (Rs) now demanded reimbursments from Petitioners (Ps)
but refused.
 Rs now filed befor RTC Manila a complaint for sum of money
 P arguments
 MeTC has jurisdiction and not RTC
 RTC ruling
 To pay petitioners plus atty fees and expenses of litigation
 CA ruling
 Totality rule applies under sec 19 of BP 129 which means sum of
the two claims that determines the jurisdictional amount
 2 claims were more than 20k pesos = jurisdiction RTC
 R were wrong in arguing that there was a misjoinder of parties
 There was a question of fact common to all parties
a. Whose fault or negligence caused the damage to the
jeepney?
 It was their own failure for not able to present evidence during
their scheduled hearing for the reception of their evidence
 Established with preponderance of evidence liability for quasi-
delict (ART 2176)
 P filed for MR but denied
6. Issue WON TC has jurisdiction over the subject of the action considering that
Respondents’ respective cause of action against P did not arise out of the same
transaction nor are there questions of law and facts common to both petitioners
and Respondents
7. Ratio
 Rule 3 sec 6 ROC provides:
 “Sec. 6. 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 requires that
 The right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of
transactions
 There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or
defendants
 Joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the rules
on jurisdiction and venue
 As applied to this case
 There is a single transaction common to all
 Patranco’s bus hitting the rear side of the jeepney
 There is a common question of fact
 WON P are negligent
 Thus, there being a single transaction common to both R, they
have the same cause of action against P
 To determine identity of cause of action, it must be ascertained whether
the same evidence which is necessary to sustain the second cause of
action would have been sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first
 As applied to this case
 Had there been spate suits, the same evidence would have
been presented to sustain the same cause of action
 Joinder of parties is to avoid multiplicity of suits
 Corollarily, Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the same Rules provides:
“Sec. 5. Joinder of causes of action.—A party may in one
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many
causes of action as he may have against an opposing party,
subject to the following conditions: xxx

(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are

principally for recovery of money the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.”

 Paragraph (d) embodies the “totality rule”

 Since Rs cause of action arose out of the same transaction,
the totality of the claims will apply
 On Negligence of P
 TC and CA are one with the decision and such finding is binding
upon as as they are not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of
some fact or circumstance of significance and influence
 On Due process
 It is simply an opportunity to be heard
 There were several times where the trial court granted resetting
of trial and P was able to file an answer and participated during
trial
 Dispositive: Denied and CA affirmed