Donde esta, Doña Paz?

(Cuidado: This is not a dissertation nor a complete legal opinion, it is however, a learned critique regarding Media Usage of Legal Parlance vis-a-vis the Technical Rules of Procedure in our Court sytem.)

Twice already I've heard the words "Class Suit" being used by media men to refer to two media-covered incidents. First, the Separate Action filed by a number of media personality who were accused by the First Gentleman of Libel, which he eventually withdrew; and second, just so recently, the Action to be filed by those injured during the Ayala Mall blast last November.

Perhaps due to the media's 'tabloidism', the words themself offer a sense of importance, and can easily be remembered by laymen. However, I can assume that every barrister, lawyer, judge or justice of this land, and even every law student who already took up Civil proceedure, feel a certain degree of outrage for this kind of abuse to a term which has a particular meaning in the realm of law.

The Requisites of a Class Suit are:

1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;
2. The parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court; and
3. The parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned.

Every Law student knows the celebrated Doña Paz case where the Supreme Court differentiated a Class Suit from a mere JOINDER OF PARTIES. These requisites came from this particular case.

Although several persons are named as party plaintiffs in their Actions, the second requisite is not present. The media men involved can all be named in the complaint, albeit the Caption of the Complaint may be longer than the body. Furthermore, their Causes of Action are separate and distinct from each other. In other words, in other for a Class suit to have the first requisite, the interest of each and every person cannot be identified with him... it must be COMMON to all parties.

Let me name a few more examples which ARE NOT class suits:

1. The Sumilao Land case. (All the farmers can be identified and named.)
2. The Agricultural land case of the Archdiocese of Nueva Caceres.

3. The M/V Doña Paz case.

A classic example of a Class suit is the celebrated case of OPOSA vs. FACTORAN whereby the Supreme Court upheld the locus standi of children in a representative capacity to petition the Court to enjoin the Government from certain logging activities, citing the so called "INTER-GENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY". This may be a maverick interpretation rather by the High Court, however, it falls squarely within the requisites. How many children are there in the Islands, and how many are to be born? Naturally, the loss of the environment due to certain activities is of common and general interest not only to children, but of all citizens, if not mankind itself.

Generally, class suits are big in Common Law countries as regards Tort cases against multibillion dollar corporations. Tobacco, Medicine, Food Products, Appliances, etc. Although the author of this entry is inclined to think that the Common Law notion of a Class suit is slightly different from ours, they are essentially the same in many aspects.

It is quite understandable that the media parlance differs greatly from the technical words of the law. A classic example is the usage of the word "SALVAGE" to mean a sort of heinous murder, though in the true sense, SALVAGE means "TO SAVE". (whether person or property) However, for the rare few who read this, this may shed a bit of enlightenment of the nuances of our ever so evolving languages.

So, would the media in the future label any similar situation as JOINDER OF PARTIES? I highly doubt it. It is our responsibility perhaps to educate the people of the intricacies of the law, of what should be, and what could not... of what is, and what isn't.