JOINDER AND MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT
(Rule 2, Sections 5 and 6, as amended by the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure)

I. OVERVIEW OF CAUSE OF ACTION

A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party (the defendant) violates the right of another (the plaintiff). Under Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is defined as:

“...the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.”

From this definition flow several fundamental concepts:

Right of the Plaintiff. There must be a right in favor of the plaintiff (or claimant).
Obligation of the Defendant. There must be a corresponding obligation on the part of the defendant to respect or not to violate that right.
Act or Omission in Breach. There must be an act or omission by the defendant in violation of the plaintiff’s right.

Without the concurrence of these three elements, there is no cause of action.

II. SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION vs. MULTIPLE CAUSES OF ACTION

A single cause of action exists when there is only one delict or wrong giving rise to one primary right of the plaintiff.
Multiple causes of action exist if there are several delicts or wrongs committed by the defendant, each violating separate rights or involving separate transactions.

Splitting a single cause of action (i.e., filing multiple suits for a single cause of action) is prohibited under Rule 2, Section 4. When multiple suits are filed for the same cause, it amounts to splitting of a cause of action and may be a ground for dismissal on the basis of either litis pendentia or res judicata, as well as for violation of the prohibition on splitting.

III. JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION (Rule 2, Section 5)

A. Definition and Purpose

A joinder of causes of action is the assertion of multiple causes of action in one pleading against an opposing party or parties. The main objective is to avoid a multiplicity of suits, save the parties (and the courts) time and expense, and promote the efficient administration of justice.

Under the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 2, Section 5:

“A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of action as he or she may have against an opposing party, subject to the following conditions…”

B. Requisites for a Proper Joinder of Causes of Action

Compliance with Rule on Joinder of Parties (Rule 3).
The joinder of causes of action must not violate the rule on the proper joinder of parties. For instance, the right to relief must arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, or there must be a common question of law or fact, such that proceeding with all claims together is both convenient and just.
Jurisdiction and Venue Requirements.
- If the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed only in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) provided one of the causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
- No joinder can be done if it would require the court to act on a cause of action or matter clearly outside its jurisdiction.
- In determining the docket fees, the total amount of the claim (or claims) joined generally determines the correct filing fees.
No Prejudice to Parties or Complication of Litigation.
The joinder should not unreasonably complicate the proceedings, mislead the defendant, or otherwise cause confusion and prejudice. Courts have discretion to refuse a joinder if it will unduly delay or complicate the case.
Causes of Action Subject to Special Rules.
Special civil actions governed by special rules (e.g., special proceedings, probate, cadastral, etc.) or actions requiring specific statutory procedures might be excluded from an ordinary joinder if those rules explicitly prohibit or limit joinder.

C. Effects of a Proper Joinder

Efficiency and Economy. There is a single complaint or pleading encompassing multiple related claims or separate claims, thereby minimizing litigation costs and time.
Single Proceeding. The court hears all asserted causes of action in one proceeding, unless it later orders separation (severance) for convenience or fairness.
Single Judgment (Generally). As a general rule, there will be only one decision disposing of all causes of action, unless the court orders separate trials.

IV. MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION (Rule 2, Section 6)

A. Definition

“Misjoinder of causes of action” occurs when two or more causes of action are improperly joined in one pleading—i.e., the conditions and requirements for a proper joinder under Section 5 are not met. Examples might be:

Joining a real action requiring a different venue or jurisdiction with a personal action exclusively within the jurisdiction of another court.
Attempting to combine an ordinary civil action with a special civil action that is governed by different procedural rules and is not permitted by the Rules of Court.
Combining causes of action against different defendants where there is no common question of law or fact, and the claims do not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.

B. Effect of Misjoinder (and Non-Joinder)

Under Rule 2, Section 6:

“Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be severed and proceeded with separately.”

Not a Ground for Dismissal.
The rule explicitly states that misjoinder of causes of action does not warrant the dismissal of the case. This provision prevents parties from using technicalities to defeat substantive justice.
Severance (Separate Trial) of Misjoined Causes.
The remedy is to sever or separate the misjoined cause of action and to allow it to proceed independently if warranted. The court may do so on its own initiative or upon motion by a party. Once separated, the severed cause is handled in a separate case (with a new docket number, new filing fees if required, etc.).
No Automatic Bar to Future Claims.
Similarly, failure to join a cause of action (non-joinder) does not automatically bar the plaintiff from bringing a separate complaint for the omitted cause, as long as that cause of action has not prescribed and remains validly enforceable.

V. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Docket Fees.
- A party asserting multiple causes of action in one complaint must pay the correct filing fees based on the total amount of the claims or the nature of the action.
- Any deficiency in payment may affect the court’s authority to proceed over the claims, although courts often allow the plaintiff to rectify the deficiency within a given period.
Avoiding Splitting of Causes of Action.
- Plaintiffs should join all claims that arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions where feasible to avoid the possibility of waiving any relief or facing a dismissal for splitting a cause of action.
- At the same time, one must ensure that the claims joined are properly within the same court’s jurisdiction and venue to avoid misjoinder.
Strategic Use of Joinder.
- From a plaintiff’s perspective, joining multiple claims can be more efficient. However, if the claims are too dissimilar or require significantly different evidence, the complexity may backfire.
- Defendants, on the other hand, may challenge the joinder if it causes confusion or if not all the requisites are satisfied.
Court’s Discretion.
Even if the plaintiff has technically satisfied the requirements for joinder, the court has discretion to order separate trials if it finds that a single proceeding would not promote justice, or that the interests of judicial economy would be better served by severing certain causes of action.

VI. SELECTED JURISPRUDENCE AND COMMENTARIES

Riano, Civil Procedure: Emphasizes that proper joinder of causes of action is permissive rather than mandatory; however, certain causes of action that arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions and involve common questions of law or fact are strongly encouraged to be joined to avoid multiple suits.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal and that a properly severable cause of action may proceed separately.
Flores v. Mallare: Illustrates that if the requirements for joinder are met, a single complaint encompassing multiple claims is favored, but payment of docket fees must be accurate and complete.
Heirs of the Late Spouses Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Cruz: Discusses that the presence of a single cause or multiple causes of action depends on the plaintiff’s allegations and the distinct rights violated.

VII. SUMMARY

Cause of Action: Each wrong committed by the defendant that violates a right of the plaintiff constitutes one cause of action.
Rule Against Splitting: A single cause of action cannot be split into multiple suits.
Joinder (Section 5): Multiple causes of action can be joined in a single complaint if:
- They comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
- The court has jurisdiction over all causes of action;
- Venue is properly laid;
- Joinder will not unduly complicate the litigation.
Misjoinder (Section 6): Improperly joining causes of action is not grounds for dismissal; rather, the remedy is to sever the misjoined cause and proceed separately.
Non-Joinder: Failing to join a cause of action does not bar the filing of another action for that omitted claim if it remains valid and timely.
Practical Caution: Ensure correct docket fees are paid based on the total amount of all claims. Courts have discretion to sever claims in the interest of justice.

The rules on joinder and misjoinder of causes of action strive to balance judicial economy and procedural fairness. When properly applied, these rules enable litigants to present their entire controversy in one proceeding, yet also safeguard against undue prejudice or confusion by allowing courts to sever improperly joined causes for separate adjudication.