Rule 02
CAUSE OF ACTION
SECTION 1. Ordinary civil actions, basis of. Every ordinary civil action must be based on a
cause of action. (n)
Section 1 of Rule 1 is entitled cause of action. Section 1 expresses
the principle that every ordinary civil action must be based on a cause
of action. In other words, there cannot be a case unless you have a
cause of action.
Under Rule 16, one of the grounds for a motion to dismiss is that your
pleading states no cause of action.
Sec. 1 makes no reference to a special civil action.
Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of
action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. (n)
1. Q: Define cause of action.
A: CAUSE OF ACTION is an act or omission by which a party violates
a right of another. And based on Sec. 1 hereof, it is required that every
ordinary civil action must be based on a cause of action (Anchor
Savings Bank v. Furigay, 693 SCRA 384, 395, March 13, 2013).
2. Action v. Cause of action
An action is the suit filed in court or the remedy availed for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong (Sec. 3a Rule 1).
The cause of action forms the basis or foundation of such
remedy.
3. Three Elements of a cause of action:
JBD
62
63
JBD
64
3. Damages arising from culpa aquiliana. You are crossing the street
and you are bumped by X who was driving a car causing you injuries
and being hospitalized. You also failed to report for work.
RIGHT it is the right of every person not to be molested. You
have the right to walk peacefully and not to be harmed;
OBLIGATION it is the obligation of every person driving to be
careful so that he will not bump other people. You do not
have to enter into a contract with a person saying you will
not bump him;
DELICT or wrong because of your recklessness, you violated his
right by injuring him;
DAMAGE I have to spend money in the hospital and I lost my
income.
In quasi delict, negligence, as an element, must be alleged and
proved. (Art. 2176 CC) but the negligence of those persons described
under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, although based on quasi delict is
presumed.
Under Art. 2180, following the well-recognized doctrine of vicarious
liability, certain persons like the father, mother, guardian, owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise, employee, the State, and
teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades are, under
specified conditions, liable for acts of persons for whom they are
responsible.
Thus, an employer for instance, is liable for the damage caused by his
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks. The employers negligence in the selection and
supervision of his employee is presumed and his liability shall only
cease if he successfully proves his observance of the diligence required
of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
When an injury is caused to another by the negligence of the employee
there instantly arises the juris tantum presumption of law that there
was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection or in
the supervision, or both of the employee. The liability of the
employer is direct and immediate and is not conditioned upon
a prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior
showing of the insolvency of such employee. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon the employer to prove his exercise of diligence of a
good father of a family in the selection and supervision of the
employee (Manliclic vs. Calaunan GR No. 150157 January 25, 2007)
4. In an unlawful detainer case, the cause of action does not
accrue unless there is a demand to vacate and is not complied
JBD
65
66
67
JBD
68
69
8. Relief, Remedy and Subject Matter of the actionRelief (what you want) is the redress, protection, award or
coercive measure which the plaintiff prays the court to render in his
favor as consequence of the delict committed by the defendant while
remedy (how to get what you want) is the procedure or
appropriate legal form of relief of action which may be availed of by
the plaintiff as the means to obtain the desired relief.
Subject matter is the thing, wrongful act, contract or property,
which is directly involved in the action, concerning which the wrong
has been done and with respect to which the controversy has arisen.
SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
Sec. 3. One suit for a single cause of action. - A
party may not institute more than one suit for a single
cause of action. (3a)
Section 3 is known as the rule against splitting the cause of action.
1. Purpose:
To avoid the following:
1. Multiplicity of suits;
2.Conflicting decisions; and
3.Unnecessary vexation and harassment of defendants.
This applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims and
cross-claims.
2. What is splitting a single cause of action?
A: Splitting a cause of action is the act of instituting two or more
suits for the same cause of action.
It is the practice of dividing one cause of action into different parts
and making each part a subject of a different complaint. (Bachrach vs.
Icarigal, 68 Phil. 287)
In splitting a cause of action, the pleader divides a single cause of
action, claim or demand into two or more parts, brings a suit for one of
such parts with the intent to reserve the rest for another separate
action. (Quadra v. CA 497 SCRA 221)
EXAMPLE: In a suit under a promissory note, you file a case to
collect the principal; another action to collect the interest; another
action to collect attorneys fees. So, there is only one note and you sue
me three times but there is only one cause of action. Now, under the
law, you have split your cause of action. You should file only one case
to recover the principal and the interest as well as the attorneys fees.
JBD
70
71
72
regardless of number of rights that may have been violated. All such rights should be
alleged in a single complaint as constituting one single cause of action (Progressive
Development Corp. vs. CA, 301 SCRA 637 [1999])
The cause of action in the earlier Annulment Case is the alleged nullity of the REM (due
to its allegedly falsified or spurious nature) which is allegedly violative of
Goodlands right to the mortgaged property. It serves as the basis for the prayer for
the nullification of the REM. The Injunction Case involves the same cause of action,
inasmuch as it also invokes the nullity of the REM as the basis for the prayer for the
nullification of the extrajudicial foreclosure and for injunction against consolidation of
title. While the main relief sought in the Annulment Case (nullification of the REM) is
ostensibly different from the main relief sought in the Injunction Case (nullification of
the extrajudicial foreclosure and injunction against consolidation of title), the cause of
action which serves as the basis for the said reliefs remains the same the alleged
nullity of the REM. Thus, what is involved here is the third way of committing forum
shopping, i.e., filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different
prayers. (Asia United Bank vs. Goodland Company, Inc ., G.R. No. 191388, March 9,
2011)
This rule applies not only to complaints but also to counterclaims
and cross-claims. (Mariscal v. CA, 311 SCRA 51)
Example: The act of a defendant in taking possession of the
plaintiffs land by means of force and intimidation constitutes a single
act of dispossession but gives rise to two reliefs to the plaintiff: (a)
recovery of possession, and (b) damages arising from the loss of
possession. Both of these reliefs result from a single wrong hence,
constitute but a single cause of action. Each of them cannot be
the subject of two separate actions. IT is procedurally erroneous for the
plaintiff to file an action to recover possession and another action for
damages. Both remedies must be alleged and claimed in only one
complaint. To file a separate action for each relief is to split a single
cause of action.
Now if the defendant denies plaintiffs allegations and avers by
way of counterclaim that the action is just plain harassment
and claims for damages, attorneys fees and litigation"
expenses, he cannot file 3 counterclaims. There is only one act of
violation, the filing of a baseless suit to harass.
Sec. 4. Splitting a single cause of action;
effect of. - If two or more suits are instituted on
the basis of the same cause of action, the filing
of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is
available as a ground for the dismissal of the
others. (4a)
JBD
73
74
that the injured party can file both or one after the other. Otherwise, he
will be splitting his cause of action.
EXAMPLE: There is the Recto Law (on Sales) which provides for 3
remedies of an unpaid seller of personal properties: (1) rescind the
contract of sale; (2) exact fulfillment of obligation; and (3) foreclosure
of mortgage. But even the law on Sales is very clear: the choice of one
automatically bars resort to the other because it will be against
splitting the cause of action.
EXAMPLE: Credit Transactions: A bank has two (2) possible remedies
against a debtor for non-payment of a loan secured by a mortgage say,
of a piece of land: (1) foreclose the mortgage on the land; or (2) file an
action to collect the loan. Here, the bank cannot file a case against the
debtor to collect the loan and at the same time file an action to
foreclose the mortgage for it will be splitting the cause of action. So it
is either you enforce the principal contract of loan, or, you enforce the
accessory contract of mortgage. This is what happened in the case of
DANAO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
154 SCRA 446
FACTS: The Danao spouses borrowed money from the bank,
mortgaged their property and then they failed to pay. The bank
filed a civil action to collect the loan. After filing a civil action to
collect the loan, the bank instituted an action to foreclose the
mortgage.
HELD: Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid
down the rule that a mortgage creditor may institute against
the mortgage debtor either a personal action for debt or a real
action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may
pursue either of the two remedies, but not both.
Evidently, the prior recourse of the creditor bank in filing a
civil action against the Danao spouses and subsequently
resorting to the complaint of foreclosure proceedings, are not
only a demonstration of the prohibited splitting up of a cause of
action but also of the resulting vexation and oppression to the
debtor.
4. In Umale v. Canoga Park Development Corporation, 654
SCRA 155, 162, the Court enumerated certain tests to
determine whether two suits relate to a single or common
cause of action, thus:
JBD
75
1.
2.
3.
76
For non- payment of the first installment, the creditor has a cause of
action and can file one case.
Q: Next year, he did not pay the second installment, can the
creditor file another case?
A: YES, because this time it is the exception. Every installment is one
cause of action even if there is only one note. Remember that they are
to be performed at different times.
RULE #3 (Exception to the exception):
All obligations, arising from one contract
which, have matured at the time of the suit
must be integrated as one cause of action in
one complaint, and those not so included
would be barred. (Larena vs. Villanueva, 53
Phil. 923)
EXAMPLE: In 2008, the debtor did not pay but the creditor did not
file any case. Then this year, the second installment was not also paid.
Q: Is the creditor correct if he files two separate actions?
A: He is wrong. When all the installment are already due and the
creditor has not filed any case for the collection of the first installment,
this time, when he files for collection of the unpaid second installment,
everything must be integrated. If you do not file a claim for one, it is
deemed barred.
So for example, if you will wait for the entire note to mature, you
cannot apply rule 2. You should only file one action and you go back to
the general rule.
77
there was no loan and the promissory note is a forgery how many
causes of action are there?
Now, in that kind of statement, he is not only repudiating the first
installment. He is repudiating the entire note. So under rule #4, the
creditor can file a case for the entire loan because it has been
repudiated. If you only file only one for the first installment which fell
due, then another for the others, it will be useless because he will still
maintain the same position. So you do not wait anymore for the 2nd
and 3rd installments to fall due. You file only one case for the entire
breach. There is a total breach for a continuing obligation and there is
now only one cause of action for the entire promissory note. (Blossoms
& Co. v. Manila Gas Corporation, 55 Phil. 226) The anticipatory breach
committed by the defendant entitles the plaintiff to only one cause of
action.
78
79
3. Joinder is not mandatoryQ: Under Section 5, is the creditor obliged to file one complaint for
the 2 promissory notes?
A: NO. Joinder of causes of action is permissive. He may or may not.
In the example, is C obliged to join the causes of action against D?
No. He may file a single suit for each of the claims if he desires
because each debt is a separate cause of action. Joinder of causes of
action is not compulsory. It is merely permissive.
4. Modes of joinder Alternative or cumulative
Q: How may causes of action be joined?
A: Causes of action may be joined either: (a) alternatively or (b)
cumulatively.
A CUMULATIVE JOINDER exists when you are seeking relief for all your
causes of action. This is illustrated in the examples above involving
two promissory notes.
An ALTERNATIVE JOINDER exists when your cause of action is either
one or the other. You are not seeking relief from both but from either
one.
Examples:
1. A is the importer of the goods that were shipped on board a
carrier. Upon reaching Cebu City, they were unloaded by the
arrastre or stevedoring operator. But when the goods were
delivered to A they were already in a damaged condition. A
complained to the arrastre, which denied liability claiming that
the goods were damaged already before unloading. Then when A
went to the carrier, it passed the blame to the arrastre.
A here has two (2) possible causes of action: (1) an action
against the stevedoring operator under the contract of depositary
under the law on Credit Transaction; Or, (2) an action against the
carrier under the Law on Transportation. So there are 2 possible
causes of action.
Q: Can A file a complaint incorporating the two (arrastre and
the carrier) both as defendants?
A: YES, that is allowed. This is alternative joinder because A is
not claiming from both of them, but either one or the other.
2. C is a passenger riding on a public utility vehicle, which collided
with another vehicle and she is not sure who is at fault. If the fault
JBD
80
lies with the other vehicle, and the driver of the bus where C was
riding is not at fault, then her cause of action against the other
vehicle is quasi-delict. But if the fault lies with the driver of the
bus where she was riding, her cause of action is culpa contractual.
So she has 2 possible causes of action.
Q: Is it possible for C to file one complaint naming both, the
drivers, or both operators as defendants?
A: YES. Either of them is liable to her. That is alternative joinder
of causes of action.
That is why the manner of joining the defendants alternatively or
otherwise should be correlated with Rule 3, Section 13 and Rule 8,
Section 2:
RULE 3, SEC. 13. Alternative defendants. - Where
the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several
persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any
or all of them as defendants in the alternative,
although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right of relief against the
other. (13a)
RULE 8, SEC. 2.
Alternative causes of action
or defenses. - A party may set forth two or more
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in one cause of action or
defense or in separate causes of action or
defenses. When two or more statements are made in
the
alternative
and
one
of
them
if
made
independently would be sufficient, the pleading is
not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one
or more of the alternative statements. (2)
5. Conditions for proper joinder of causes of actionUnder Section 5, joinder of causes of action is allowed under the
following conditions:
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties;
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules;
c.)Where the causes of action are between the same parties but
pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes
of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue
lies therein; and
JBD
81
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. (5a)
a.) The party joining the causes of action shall comply
with the rules on joinder of parties
Joinder of causes of action when there are several partiesThe rule on joinder of parties is Rule 3, Section 6 which provides
that two (2) or more persons can join as plaintiffs in one complaint or
can be joined as defendants in one complaint, provided there is a
common question of fact or law involved in that case. In other
words, before there can be a proper joinder of causes of action
there must be a proper joinder of parties. Proper joinder of
parties requires that the right to relief should arise out of the
same transaction or series of transactions and that there
exists a common question of law or fact. (A more extensive
discussion on joinder of parties in Sec. 6, Rule 3)
When the causes of action accrue in favor of the same plaintiff and
against the same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff and one
defendant, it is not necessary to ask whether or not the causes of
actions arose of the same transaction or series of transactions as
stated beforehand. This question is only relevant when there are
multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants. So in our hypothetical case
where D borrowed from C two separate amounts of P350,000.00 each
covered by two separate promissory notes, C can opt to file one
complaint joining together the two causes of action arising from the
violations of the promissory notes.
EXAMPLE: Two or more passengers riding on the same bus met an
accident. All of them were injured. Every passenger who gets injured
has a cause of action separate and distinct from each other because
there are separate contracts of carriage violated. So they decided to
file a damage suit.
Q: Can they be joined in one complaint?
A: YES because there is a common question of fact or law. They are
riding on the same bus, meeting the same accident, against the same
operator. So there is a joinder of parties under Rule 3. And if the joinder
of parties under Rule 3 is proper, then their causes of action can also
be joined under Rule 2 because the condition is: shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties.
Q: Suppose these passengers were riding on different buses owned
by the same operator. All of them met an accident. Well of course the
JBD
82
same kind of case: damage suit, breach of contract against the same
operator. Now, can their causes of action be joined?
A: NO. They cannot be joined because there are several transactions
and there is no common question of fact or law. The defense of the
operator here is different from his defense there. Meaning, passenger A
has nothing to do with the complaint of passenger B because there is
no common denominator between them. So if you cannot join them
under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of action under Rule 2 is also
improper.
Distinguish joinder of causes of actions from joinder of partiesJoinder of causes of action refers to the procedural device
whereby a party who asserts various claims against the same
or several parties, files all his claims against them in a single
complaint. The joinder will not involve a joinder of parties when the
causes of action joined accrued in favor of the same plaintiff against
the same defendant, i.e., there is only one plaintiff against the same
defendant. This means that a joinder of causes of action will not
necessarily involve a joinder of parties.
Joinder of parties is a procedural device that may be
employed when there are various causes of actions that accrue
in favor of one or more plaintiffs against one or more
defendants, i.e., there is a plurality of parties. A joinder of
parties requires that before parties can be joined under a single
complaint the right to relief must arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions and there must be a
common question of law or fact. A joinder of parties may or may
not be involved in a joinder of causes of action.
b.) The joinder shall not include special civil actions
or actions governed by special rules
The special civil actions:
Rule 62 Interpleader;
Rule 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies;
Rule 64 Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions of the
Comelec and COA;
Rule 65 Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus;
Rule 66 Quo Warranto;
Rule 67 Expropriation;
Rule 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage;
Rule 69 Partition;
Rule 70 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer and
Rule 71 Contempt
JBD
83
84
85
SEC. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for
dismissal of an action.
A misjoined cause of
JBD
86
87
1. For one cause of action (one delict or wrong), file only ONE ACTION or suit.
Generally, NO SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION. Reasons:
a. to avoid multiplicity of suits;
b. to minimize expenses, inconvenience and harassment.
2. Remedy against splitting a single cause of action (two complaints separately filed
for one action) - defendant may file:
a. motion to dismiss on the ground of
(1) litis pendentia , if first complaint is still pending (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [e])
(2) res judicata , if first complaint is terminated by final judgment (Rule 16, Sec. 1 [f])
b. answer alleging either of above grounds as affirmative defense (Rule 16, Sec. 6)
If defendant fails to raise ground on time, he is deemed to have WAIVED them. Splitting
must be questioned in the trial court; cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Splitting a cause of action prohibited
6. Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action
Joinder of causes of action is the assertion of as many causes of action as a party may
have against an opposing party in one pleading alone. It is not compulsory, but merely
permissive.(Rule 2, Sec. 5)
What are the requisites for joinder of causes of action? (Rule 2, Sec. 5)
1. Compliance with the rule on permissive joinder of parties under Rule 3, Sec. 6.
Must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions AND there is a common
question of law or fact.
Ex. A, owner of a property, can file an ejectment complaint against B, C and D who are
occupying his property without his consent..
2. A party cannot join in an ordinary action any of the special civil actions. Reason:
special civil actions are governed by special rules.
Ex. P500,000 collection cannot be joined with partition because the latter is a special civil
action.
3. Where the causes of action are between the SAME PARTIES but pertain to
DIFFERENT VENUES OR JURISDICTIONS, the joinder may be allowed in the RTC,
provided ONE OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC
and the venue lies therein.
Exception: ejectment case may not be joined with an action within the jurisdiction of the
RTC as the same comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC.
Unless the defendant did not object thereto, answered the complaint, and went to trial
because he is precluded from assailing any judgment against him on the ground of
estoppel or laches (Valderrama vs. CA, 252 SCRA 406 [1996]).
N.B. An action for recovery of possession of property is a real action. Thus, it should be
filed in the place where the property is located, pursuant to Rule 4, Section 1.(Decena vs.
Piquero, G.R. No. 155736, March 31, 2005).
JBD
89
N.B. As to joinder in the MTC, it must have jurisdiction over ALL THE CAUSES OF
ACTION and must have common venue.
4. Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money,
jurisdiction is determined by the AGGREGATE OR TOTAL AMOUNT claimed (totality
rule).
N.B. The totality rule applies only to the MTC totality of claims cannot exceed the
jurisdictional amount of the MTC.
There is no totality rule for the RTC because its jurisdictional amount is without limit.
ExceptionIn tax cases where the limit is below P1 million. Amounts of P1 million or more fall
within the jurisdiction of the CTA.
Misjoinder of causes of action not ground for dismissal of an action
A misjoined cause may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed
and proceeded with separately (Rule 2, Sec. 6).
Note: Unlike splitting of a cause of action, a misjoinder is NOT a ground for the
dismissal of an action.
JBD
90