[SUBJECT] | [TOPIC] 1

[Digest maker]

SPS. PEREZ V HERMANO

[GR NO. 147417] | [July 8,2005] | [Chico-Nazario]

CASE SUMMARY Must be recit ready. Important facts and ruling of the court plus
basis
Petitioners filed a case for the enforcement of contract and damages against respondent. Respondent filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint arguing there was a misjoinder of causes of action, which the RTC granted.
The RTC dismissed the MR which was denied, and on appeal through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, the
CA dismissed for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The Supreme Court ruled first that the
case was not filed beyond the reglementary period, as Section 4 on Rule 65 was amended by AM No. 00-
23-SC, which clarified the 60 day rule that such 60-day period starts to run from receipt of
notice of the denial of the MR, if one is filed.. They also said that there was no misjoinder of
causes of action, as there were various questions of fact and law common to both Zescon Land, Inc., and
respondent Hermano arising from a series of transactions over the same properties. The RTC found that
there was no joinder on the parties, hence the misjoinder, but the Supreme Court found that 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
transactions. Such questions were sufficiently alleged in the complaint by Petitioners
in their complaint.

DOCTRINE copy SCRA syllabus related to the topic if possible

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 transactions.

FACTS bullet points

April 27, 1998 - Petitioners filed a civil case for enforcement of contract and
damages with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction
against respondent before QC RTC.
Jan 17, 2000 Respondent filed a motion with leave to dismiss the complaint or
ordered severed for separate trial arguing there was a misjoinder of causes of
action under Sec 6 Rule 2 which was granted in an order dated Feb 28, 2000
March 21, 2000 petitioners received the order
March 23, 2000 petitioners moved for motion for reconsideration, which was
denied by the trial court on May 25, 2000, and received by petitioners on June 18,
2000.
August 17, 2000 petitioners filed original action for certiorari before the CA
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing the
complaint against respondent
CA dismissed the petition for having been filed beyond the reglementary period
pursuant to Sec 4 Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure amended by A.M.
No. 00-2-03-50

PROCEDURE SUMMARY
 Action (Petition for review, appeal Decision (RTC: petition denied)
of CA decision etc.)
Civil Case for Enforcement of contract
and damages w/ prayer for TRO w/ RTC
by PET
Motion w/ leave to dismiss the RTC: Motion Granted
complaint due to misjoinder of causes
of action by RESP
MR by PET RTC: MR Denied
Original Action for Certiorari alleging CA: Petition Dismissed; filed beyond
GAD by RTC period
Rule 45 to the SC SC: Reversed CA Decision

ISSUE state all issues first. Bold the one related to the subject
1. WON PETS FILED WITHIN REGLEMENTARY PERIOD YES
2. WON RTC JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN DROPPING THE
CASE DUE TO MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION? YES

RATIO Bold important words or phrases

1. WON YES. Sec 4 was amended by A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, and amendment
should be applied retroactively because it is considered curative in nature, as it
remedied the confusion caused by the original Circular No. 39-98
a. At the time petitioners filed their petition for certiorari (August 17, 2000)
the rule then prevailing was Sec 4 Rule 65 as amended by Circular No. 39-
98. However, on September 1, 2000, Sec 4 was amended by A.M. No. 00-
2-03- SC to read:

Sec 4 The petition shall be filed not later than 60 days from notice of the judgment or
order resolution. In case of a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, the 60-day period shall be counted from notice
of the denial of said motion.
i. Under the amendment, the 60-day period starts to run from receipt
of notice of the denial of the MR, if one is filed.
b. The amendment should be applied retroactively because it is considered
curative in nature, as it remedied the confusion caused by Circular No. 39-
98 (because prior to the amendment, a party had a fresh period from
receipt of the order denying the MR to file a petition for certiorari)
c. Curative statutes, enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate
legal proceedings, by their very essence, are retroactive. And being a
procedural rule, such are construed to be applicable to actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed
retroactive.
d. Petitioners had a fresh period of 60 days from June 18. When they filed on
Aug. 17, exactly 60 days had lapsed.
2. YES. There was no Misjoinder on Causes of action in the current case.
a. The rule on misjoinder of causes of action is found in Sec 6 Rule 2. There
is misjoinder of causes of action when the conditions for joinder under Sec
5 Rule 2 are not met. It is the first condition - on joinder of parties - that
the trial court deemed to be lacking. It is well to remember that the
joinder of causes of action may involve the same parties or different
 [SUBJECT] | [TOPIC] 3
[Digest maker]

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 transactions.
b. In herein case, petitioners have adequately alleged in their complaint that
after they had already agreed to enter into a contract to sell with Zescon
Land, Inc., through Sales-Contreras, the latter also gave them other
documents to sign, to wit: A Deed of Absolute Sale over the same
properties but for a lower consideration, two mortgage deeds over the
same properties in favor of respondent Hermano with accompanying
notes and acknowledgment receipts for Ten Million pesos (P10,000,000)
each. Petitioners claim that Zescon Land, Inc., through Sales-Contreras,
misled them to mortgage their properties which they had already agreed
to sell to the latter
c. Reasonably apparent that there are questions of fact and law common to
both Zescon Land, Inc., and respondent Hermano arising from a series of
transactions over the same properties.
i. Question of fact, of whether or not Zescon Land, Inc., indeed misled
petitioners to sign the mortgage deeds in favor of respondent
Hermano.
ii. Question of which of the four contracts were validly entered into by
the parties.
iii. 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.
d. 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.
e. Prescinding from the foregoing, and bearing in mind that the joinder of
causes of action should be liberally construed as to effect in one action a
complete determination of all matters in controversy involving one subject
matter, we hold that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in
severing from the complaint petitioners cause of action against
respondent Hermano.

DECISION bullet points. Dont copy and paste

Petition GRANTED
CA Decision REVERSED
RTC ordered to reinstate Hermano as a defendant

SEPARATE OPINION delete if N/A

Concurring [Justice]

Dissenting [Justice]

APPENDIX
DIGESTERS NOTES / TABLES/ ILLUSTRATIONS delete if N/A

Delete gray parts