G.R. No. L-20976 January 23, 1967
HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA PORT SERVICE and MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The vessel SS “Hamburg Maru” shipped cargo, including one drum of anti-skinning agent, from Hamburg, Germany, to Manila for consignee General Paint Corporation (Philippines) Inc., which insured the shipment with plaintiff Hanover Insurance Company. Upon arrival at the Port of Manila on October 31, 1961, the cargo was discharged into the custody of defendant Manila Port Service, the arrastre operator. The Manila Port Service failed to deliver the drum of anti-skinning agent. As insurer, plaintiff paid the consignee P1,089.47 for the loss and, as subrogee, filed a claim with the arrastre operator. Upon failure to collect, plaintiff sued, in the alternative, the owner/agent of the carrying vessel and the arrastre operator/its principal, alleging uncertainty as to who was responsible. The vessel owner/agent answered with a cross-claim against the arrastre operator/principal. The arrastre operator/principal filed motions to dismiss both the complaint and the cross-claim. The trial court granted the motions, holding that the amount involved against these defendants placed the claim within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal court, resulting in a misjoinder of causes of action. Plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against defendants Manila Railroad Company and Manila Port Service on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for trial. The joinder of causes of action against alternative defendants is permitted under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. Here, the plaintiff was uncertain whether the loss occurred during transit (making the carrier liable) or after discharge (making the arrastre operator liable). Since one of the alternative causes of action (against the steamship company) is an action in admiralty cognizable by the Court of First Instance, the entire suit was correctly filed in that court, notwithstanding that the other cause of action (against the arrastre operator), if standing alone based on the amount, would fall within municipal court jurisdiction. This joinder avoids multiplicity of suits and removes the undue disadvantage to the plaintiff of proving its case in different courts against parties with exclusive knowledge of the facts.