Grecia v. Salas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners filed original petitions for the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to reinstate five election protests (Nos. 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, and 1013) previously commenced in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. 2. Procedural History: The respondent judge dismissed these election protests on the ground that the "motions" (protests) were not signed by the respective protestants personally, but by their attorney. The defendants in these protests had moved for dismissal on the same ground. The dismissals occurred on July 31, 1916. 3. The Petition: On August 26, 1916, petitioners filed a joint petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court. The Attorney-General, representing the respondent judge, demurred to the petition, arguing improper joinder of parties-plaintiff and parties-defendant, as none of the petitioners were interested in the relief sought by the others, and none of the respondents were opposed to all petitioners.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners, who were protestants in separate election cases, may join in a single petition for a writ of mandamus. Whether the respondent judge committed a reversible error in dismissing the election protests solely on the ground that the motions were signed by the attorney instead of the protestants personally.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for the writ of mandamus, ordering the respondent judge to reinstate the dismissed election protests and proceed to try them on their merits. The Court found the joinder of parties improper but, due to the importance and urgency of the question, proceeded to decide the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of joinder: The Court acknowledged the Attorney-General's contention that there was an improper joinder of parties. It reasoned that while the remedy sought by each petitioner was analogous in form (mandamus to reinstate their respective cases), the actual remedy was distinct and separate, as each sought the reinstatement of their particular case (e.g., case No. 1003 versus case No. 1004). The general rule for ordinary actions, including mandamus, requires that all plaintiffs must have a common point of litigation and a common interest in the judgment sought. Since the interests of the petitioners were separate and independent, they should have commenced separate actions. However, due to the importance and urgency of the question, the Court deemed it inadvisable to dismiss the petition on this ground and proceeded to the merits. On the dismissal of the election protests: The Court held that the respondent judge erred in dismissing the election protests without considering their merits. The Court referred to its prior decision in De Castro vs. Salas and Santiago (ante, p. 818), which had already settled the issue that motions in election protests could be signed by the attorney of the protestant. Therefore, the dismissal based solely on the lack of personal signature by the protestant was improper.
Main Doctrine
Separate and distinct rights, even if seeking the same kind of remedy, cannot be joined in a single action for mandamus; each must commence their action separately.