G.R. No. L-17799; August 31, 1962
BENVENENCIO VALENCIA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE CITY OF DUMAGUETE, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants, Benvenencio Valencia and 28 other residents of Negros Oriental, filed a class suit against the City of Dumaguete and several cinema operators. They sought to recover surcharges collected from moviegoers pursuant to City Ordinance No. 76, Series of 1954, as amended. The complaint alleged the ordinance was ultra vires and void, and that the collections were thus illegal. Plaintiffs claimed to represent about 30,000 persons from various municipalities, arguing it was impracticable to bring all before the court. They did not specify individual claims, dates of payment, or amounts paid by each person, instead alleging aggregate sums collected by the defendants from their theaters.
Defendants moved to dismiss or for a bill of particulars, requiring plaintiffs to specify each plaintiff’s exact claim, dates of attendance, and proof of payment under protest. The lower court ordered plaintiffs to comply. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint but failed to provide the specific individual particulars demanded, maintaining the suit was a proper class action. Consequently, the lower court dismissed the complaint for failure to obey its order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint for the plaintiffs’ failure to submit a bill of particulars specifying individual claims, and whether the action was a proper class suit under the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the dismissal was correct. The Supreme Court ruled the action was not a proper class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. For a class suit to lie, the subject matter must be of common or general interest to all represented parties. Here, each moviegoer had a distinct and separate interest limited to the recovery of the specific surcharge amount he or she individually paid. No plaintiff had a right to the amounts paid by others. The case was analogous to prior rulings where class suits were disallowed in recovery actions concerning separate, individually claimed portions of property.
The legal logic is that a class suit requires a shared, undivided interest or a common right against the defendant. The plaintiffs’ claims were separate and several, not collective. Each claim for refund constituted a separate cause of action requiring individual proof of payment and protest. The lower court’s order for a bill of particulars was therefore proper to ascertain the specific details of each distinct claim. The plaintiffs’ failure to comply justified dismissal under Section 3, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court for failure to obey a lawful order. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, upholding the requirement for specificity in pleading when individual, separate monetary claims are involved, even if numerous parties are allegedly affected.