Parties Notes

Re: Request of the Heirs of the Passengers of Doña Paz Rule 3

March 3, 1998 | No Ponente idk why lol |  Section 12. Class suit. — When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or
general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a
Doctrine: When there are separate rights asked for by the plaintiffs, a class suit is not appropriate under number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully
Rule 3.12, instead the rule on permissive joinder of parties must apply under rule 3.6 protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest
shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)
Facts:  Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom any right to
 The victims of the tragic Doña Paz filed a class suit against Sulpicio Lines for the payment of relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to
one and a half billion pesos in damages. exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these
 There are 27 named plaintiffs in representation of the 4,000 victims and their heirs, and the Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law
survivors of the Doña Paz incident dubbed as “the worst sea disaster in the history. or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the
 The claim for damages for each victim ranges from 800,000 to 1,200,000.
court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no
 Out of the 27 named plaintiffs, 7 were certified by the Quezon City Assessor to have no property interest. (6n)
registered in their name. These 7 were exempted from paying the docket fees and other necessary
fees
 While the rest of the plaintiffs filed “Motion for Leave to file case as a pauper litigant”
 As the docket fees would cause as much ask 6,000,000 pesos While Doña Paz alleged that:
 The total passengers aboard the vessel were only 1,493 not 4,000 people
 They have been exerting efforts to reach out to the victims or their next of kin for the
payment of damages.
 The class suit should not proper since a single suit can deprive the other victims of
filing the case in the proper venue.

Ruling:
W/N the rule applicable is Sec. 12, Rule 3 (class suit) or Sec. 6, Rule 3 (permissive joinder of parties)
– Permissive Joinder
- The rule applicable in this case is Rule 3 Section 6 on the Permissive joinder of parties.
- Class suit
o What is contemplated, as will be noted, is that
 (a) the subject matter in controversy is of common or general interest to
many persons, and
 (b) those persons are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring
them all before the court.
- Permissive Joinder of parties
o On the other hand, if there are many persons who have distinct, separate rights
against the same party or group of parties, but those rights arise from the same
transaction or series of transactions and there are common questions of fact or
law resulting therefrom, the former may join as plaintiffs in one action against
the same defendant.
- A party may be allowed to litigate in forma pauperis only upon a proper showing he has no
means to that effect by affidavits, certification of the corresponding provincial, city, of municipal
treasurer.
- Only the 7 were exempted from payment of docket fees.

Dispositive

WHEREFORE, the order complained of being in accordance with law, the solicitation to set aside the same,
and to be exempted from observance of the rule on paupers litigant, is DENIED. The authority to litigate in
the form of a class action is likewise DENIED.