Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 216 views

    Case Digest - Flores V.S Mallare

    Uploaded by

    Chem Mae
    The RTC dismissed a joint collection complaint against two defendants on the basis that the amount claimed against one defendant was below the RTC's jurisdictional threshold. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the totality rule did not apply because the claims against each defendant were separate and distinct, did not arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, and there was no common question of law or fact. The total of the claims could not be used to meet the jurisdictional amount when the causes of action were separate and distinct in this way.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Flores V.S Mallare

    Uploaded by

    Chem Mae
    216 views1 page
    The RTC dismissed a joint collection complaint against two defendants on the basis that the amount claimed against one defendant was below the RTC's jurisdictional threshold. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the totality rule did not apply because the claims against each defendant were separate and distinct, did not arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, and there was no common question of law or fact. The total of the claims could not be used to meet the jurisdictional amount when the causes of action were separate and distinct in this way.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Case Digest - Flores v.s Mallare

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC dismissed a joint collection complaint against two defendants on the basis that the amount claimed against one defendant was below the RTC's jurisdictional threshold. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the totality rule did not apply because the claims against each defendant were separate and distinct, did not arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, and there was no common question of law or fact. The total of the claims could not be used to meet the jurisdictional amount when the causes of action were separate and distinct in this way.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    216 views1 page

    Case Digest - Flores V.S Mallare

    Uploaded by

    Chem Mae
    The RTC dismissed a joint collection complaint against two defendants on the basis that the amount claimed against one defendant was below the RTC's jurisdictional threshold. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the totality rule did not apply because the claims against each defendant were separate and distinct, did not arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, and there was no common question of law or fact. The total of the claims could not be used to meet the jurisdictional amount when the causes of action were separate and distinct in this way.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FLORES vs. HON.

    MALLARE-PHILLIPPS
    CASE DIGEST
    FACTS:
    This case started when Petitioner Flores, appealed by certiorari against the order of
    Hon. Judge Mallare-Phillipps which dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
    Petitioner Flores, filed a complaint against Ignacio Binongcal to pay the amount of P11,
    643 and Fernando Calion to pay the amount of P10,212, in a joint complaint for
    collection of sum of money before the RTC.
    Respondent Binongcals counsel filed for a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
    jurisdiction since the amount demanded against Binongcal was P11, 643 below the
    jurisdictional amount of RTC which is P20,000 above.
    Binongcal further contend that Calions obligation was separate and distinct from that of
    his obligation.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Totality Rule will apply in this case and cause the two collection
    complaint to be joined?
    HELD:
    The Supreme Court held in this case that under the present law, the totality rule is
    applied also to cases where two or more plaintiffs having separate causes of action against a
    defendant join in a single complaint, as well as to cases where a plaintiff has separate causes
    of action against two or more defendants joined in a single complaint. However, the causes of
    action in favor of the two or more plaintiffs or against the two or more defendants should
    arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and there should be a common
    question of law or fact, as provided in Section 6 of Rule 3.
    In cases of permissive joinder of parties, whether as plaintiffs or as defendants, under
    Section 6 of Rule 3, the total of all the claims shall now furnish the jurisdictional test. Needless
    to state also, if instead of joining or being joined in one complaint separate actions are filed by
    or against the parties, the amount demanded in each complaint shall furnish the jurisdictional
    test.
    It appears that there is a misjoinder of parties for the reason that the claims against
    respondents Binongcal and Calion are separate and distinct and neither of which falls within its
    jurisdiction.
    WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

    You might also like