Totality Rule; Where claim for damages are not merely incidental to or consequences of the

main action but constitute the primary relief prayed for in the complaint

G.R. No.140746 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Company, Inc.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

A Pantranco bus and a jeep figured in a collision on a rainy October 28, 1984. The bus overtook the
jeep while the two vehicles were negotiating a curve. Crispin Gicale was driving the jeep owned by
his mother Martina (respondents together with Standard Insurance) while Alexander Buncan
(petitioner, together with Pantranco) was the driver of the Pantranco bus. The bus sped away after
the collision. The total cost for the repair of the jeep amounted to PHP 21,415. However, Standard
only shouldered PHP 8,000 while Martina shouldered the PHP 13,415 balance. Thereafter, herein
respondents demanded reimbursement from Pantranco, which the latter refused, prompting
respondents to file with the RTC a complaint for a sum of money. Petitioners denied the allegations
and averred that it is the MTC which has jurisdiction over the case, not the RTC because both claims
are below the PHP 20,000 threshold. The RTC, CA rendered decisions in favor of herein
respondents. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the subject petition with the Supreme Court. The Court
decided in favor of the respondents, citing the totality rule embodied and exemplified by Section
5(d) Rule 2 and Section 33(1) of B.P. Blg. 129.

DOCTRINE

Totality Rule [exemplified by Section 33(1) of B.P. Blg. 129]

Where there are several claims or causes of action between the same or different parties, embodied
in the same complaint, the amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims in all causes
of action, irrespective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different
transactions.

Embodied in the same complaint = joinder of parties & joinder of causes of action

See: Section 6, Rule 3 of the ROC [Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties.]

Permissive joinder of parties requires: (a) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction or
series of transactions; (b) there is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants;
and (c) such joinder is not otherwise proscribed by the provisions of the Rules on jurisdiction and
venue.

See also: Section 5(d), Rule 2 of the ROC [Section 5. Joinder of causes of action.]

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Section 6, Rule 3 ROC

Section 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

1
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. (6n)

Section 5(d) Rule 2 ROC

Section 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

Section 33(1) B.P. Blg. 129

xxx 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.

FACTS

1. 28 October 1984 (rainy): Crispin Gicale was driving the passenger jeep owned by his mother
Martina along the National Highway in Talavera, Nueva Ecija.
2. While negotiating a curve, a Pantranco bus driven by Alexander Buncan (trailing behind the
jeep) overtook the latter and hit the left rear side of the jeep and sped away thereafter.
3. Crispin reported the incident to the police and their insurance company, Standard Insurance
Company Inc.
4. The repairs of the jeep amounted to PHP 21,415.00. Standard shouldered PHP 8,000.00
while Martina shouldered the balance of PHP 13,415.00.
5. Petitioners demanded reimbursement from Pantranco, however, the latter refused.
6. Martina and Standard (herein respondents) filed with the RTC a complaint for sum of money.
7. The RTC ruled in favor of herein respondents and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

RTC

o Standard Insurance and Martina

CA
o Pantranco and Buncan appealed
Argued that Martinas claim of PHP 13,415.00 and Standards claim of PHP
8,000.00 fell under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC.
Contended that there was a misjoinder of parties

2
 Claimed that they were denied due process because the case was deemed
submitted for decision without even declaring defendants in default or to
have waived presentation of evidence

o CA Decision
Pantrancos argument regarding jurisdiction is incorrect per the Totality Rule
provided for in Section 19, BP 129 (not yet amended) which states that it is
the sum of the two claims that determines the jurisdictional amount
In the case at bench, total is above PHP 20,000 and is therefore under the
RTC jurisdiction.
On misjoinder: assuming that there was, Sec. 11 Rule 7 of the ROC and
under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the misjoinder does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court nor is it a ground to dismiss complaint.
On due process denial: This is incorrect. Pantranco failed to present during
the scheduled hearing for the reception of their evidence despite notice and
without any motion or explanation, nor did they file any motion for
reconsideration.

8. Aggrieved, Pantranco filed for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE with HOLDING

Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case. YES.

Pantranco insists that the RTC has no jurisdiction because the cause of action of each
respondent did not arise from the same transaction and there are no common questions of
law and fact.
SC
o In this case, there is a single transaction common to all: Pantrancos bus hitting the
rear side of the jeep. There is also a common question of fact: whether Pantranco
was negligent.
o 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 for the first cause to recover
o Here, if both parties filed suit, the same evidence would have been presented to
sustain their causes of action, thus filing by both respondents with the court is in
order (speedy and orderly administration of justice)

Whether Pantranco is liable to the respondents. YES.

The finding of the RTC as confirmed by the CA is a factual finding which is binding upon the
Supreme Court.

3
 It has been repeatedly held that a trial courts factual findings, when affirmed by the
Appelalate Court, are conclusive and binding upon the SC.
There is not sufficient ground in the present case to deviate from this rule.

Whether Pantranco was denied due process. NO.

Records show that during the hearing, Pantrancos counsel filed two motions to reset the trial
and were granted by the trial court. Then they filed a notice to withdraw.
After Standard and Martina presented their evidence, the trial court (based on the motion of
Pantranco) reset the hearing to another date. Pantranco failed to appear on the said date.
The trial court warned Pantranco that if they fail to appear in the next hearing date, the case
will be submitted for resolution on the basis of the evidence presented.
After two more postponements, Pantranco still failed to appear. Thus the trial court submitted
it for decision.
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard which clearly was given.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 23, 1999 and
Resolution dated November 4, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 38453 are
hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

DIGESTER: Kim