GR L 45177; (April, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45177; April 5, 1939
JOSE MARTINEZ, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA, Justice of the Peace of Biñan, Laguna, CARLOS YOUNG, NEWLAND BALDWIN, and ADELE C. BALDWIN, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioners (Jose Martinez, et al.) were defendants in eleven separate forcible entry and detainer cases filed by respondents (Carlos Young, Newland Baldwin, and Adele C. Baldwin) before the justice of the peace court. Petitioners requested assessors in those cases, but the judge proceeded without granting them. Petitioners then filed a single mandamus action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) to annul the proceedings and secure assessors. Respondents demurred, arguing misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The CFI sustained the demurrer and allowed amendment. Petitioners amended but failed to cure the defect. In a second amended complaint, they omitted the fact that they were sued in eleven separate cases. The CFI, upon respondents’ motion and presentation of the decisions in those eleven cases showing distinct interests, ordered petitioners to file separate actions. Petitioners refused to amend further, leading the CFI to dismiss their mandamus case.
ISSUE
Whether the CFI correctly dismissed the mandamus case for petitioners’ refusal to file separate actions after being ordered to do so due to misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
RULING
Yes, the CFI’s dismissal was correct. The respondents’ motion to require petitioners to file separate actions was equivalent to a motion for specification under Section 108 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) or a demurrer based on misjoinder of plaintiffs. The CFI had inherent power to modify its prior orders in the interest of justice. When a demurrer is sustained or specification is ordered, and the plaintiff fails to comply, dismissal is proper under Sections 101 and 127 of Act No. 190 . The petitioners, having distinct interests and obligations as shown by the separate decisions in the eleven underlying cases, could not properly join in a single mandamus action. Their refusal to correct the misjoinder warranted dismissal. The appealed order was affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.