TOPIC: JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION
NATURE OF THE CASE: This petition was filed after the CA
dismissed the petitioners’ original action for certiorari for being filed out
of time. The original action filed with the CA questions the decision of the
RTC ruling that there was a misjoinder in the causes of action in the civil
case filed by the petitioners, and consequently dropping respondent Hermano
from the said case.
FACTS: Petioner spouses and Aviso filed three causes
of action based on the following allegations. Sometime in November 1997, the
spouses Perez and Aviso entered into a Contract to Sell with Zecson Land Inc.
as the buyer through its president Zenie Sales-Contreras. The subject
properties were five parcels of land valued at P19, 104, 000. In the agreement
entered into by the parties, Zecson Land Inc. shall pay a down payment to the
spouses and Aviso, another portion of the purchase price will be given as cash
advance upon the execution of the contract, while the rest shall be used by
Zecson as payment for loans earlier contracted by the three from the company.
This is the first cause of action.
In the second cause of action, the
spouses Perez and Aviso contend that they were tricked to sign other documents
simultaneous with the execution of the Contract to Sell. Two of the said
documents were mortgage deeds over the same 5 properties in favour of
respondent Hermano, whom they have never met. Sales-Contreras allegedly
explained to them that “the mortgage contracts would merely serve to facilitate
the payment of the price agreed upon in their Contract to Sell.” However, the spouses and Aviso
assert that it was never their intention to mortgage their properties to
Hermano and that they have never received a single centavo from mortgaging
their properties to him. They now then seek a TRO against Hermano who informed
them that he would be foreclosing the subject properties.
In their third cause of action, the
spouses and Aviso pray for damages against Zecson Land, Inc. and/or Zenie
Sales-Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele and Antonio Hermano. They claim that
they are entitled to damages from the aforementioned defendants for Zecson and
Contreras’ failure to comply with their obligations under their Contract to
Sell and in misleading and misrepresenting them into mortgaging their
properties to Hermano, who in turn, had not paid them the proceeds thereof.
Thus, the first cause of action was
for enforcement of contract to sell entered into between the spouses and Aviso
and Zecson, the second was for annulment or rescission of two contracts of
mortgage entered into between the spouses and Aviso and Hermano, while the last
one was for damages against all the mentioned defendants. A joinder was made on
these causes of action and a civil case for Enforcement of Contract and Damages
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or
Preliminary Injunction against Zescon Land, Inc. and/or its President Zenie
Sales-Contreras, Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele and against respondent herein Antonio
Hermano was filed before the RTC.
Hermano denied the spouses and
Aviso’s allegations through his Answer with Counterclaim. Hermano also filed a
“Motion with Leave to Dismiss the Complaint or Ordered Severed for Separate
Trial" which was granted by the trial court on the ground that there was a
misjoinder in the causes of action. As a consequence, Hermano was dropped from
the civil case. The spouses Perez and Aviso moved for reconsideration but was
also denied by the trial court. So, they filed an original action for
certiorari before the CA.
The CA dismissed the petition
"for having been filed beyond the reglementary period pursuant to Section
4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, as amended." The
subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was also denied.
Hence this petition.
ISSUE RELATED TO THE TOPIC: WON the trial court
erred in dropping Hermano in the civil
action and ruling that there was a misjoinder in the causes of action.
HELD: Yes. The statutory intent behind the provisions on
joinder of causes of action is to encourage joinder of actions which could
reasonably be said to involve kindred rights and wrongs, although the courts
have not succeeded in giving a standard definition of the terms used or in
developing a rule of universal application. The dominant idea is to permit
joinder of causes of action, legal or equitable, where there is some
substantial unity between them. While the rule allows a plaintiff to join as
many separate claims as he may have, there should nevertheless be some unity in
the problem presented and a common question of law and fact involved, subject
always to the restriction thereon regarding jurisdiction, venue and joinder of
parties. Unlimited joinder is not authorized.
What the SC gathered
from the trial court’s Orders was that the trial court ruled that there was a
misjoinder in the civil case filed because it did not comply with the
conditions on joinder of parties. It is well to remember that the joinder of
causes of action may involve the same parties or different parties. If the
joinder involves different parties, as in this case, there must be a question
of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising out of the same
transaction or series of transaction.
It can be deduced from
the averments made in the complaint that there are questions of fact and law
common to both Zecson Land, Inc. and Hermano arising from a series of
transaction over the same properties.
There is the question of fact, for
example, of whether or not Zescon Land, Inc., indeed misled petitioners to sign
the mortgage deeds in favor of respondent Hermano. There is also the question
of which of the four contracts were validly entered into by the parties. Note
that under Article 2085 of the Civil Code, for a mortgage to be valid, it is
imperative that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.
Thus, respondent Hermano will definitely be affected if it is subsequently
declared that what was entered into by petitioners and Zescon Land, Inc., was a
Contract of Sale (as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by them)
because this would mean that the contracts of mortgage were void as petitioners
were no longer the absolute owners of the properties mortgaged. Finally, there
is also the question of whether or not Zescon Land, Inc., as represented by
Sales-Contreras, and respondent Hermano committed fraud against petitioners as
to make them liable for damages.
Thus, the petition
was granted, the Orders of the RTC were annulled and set aside, and the RTC was
ordered to add respondent Antonio Hermano as one of the defendants in Civil Case
filed by spouses Perez and Aviso.
No comments:
Post a Comment