Class Suit
An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attendant facts. A class suit does not require commonality of interest in the questions involved in the suit. What is required by the Rules is a common or general interest in the subject matter of the litigation.
The subject matter of the action means the physical, the things real or personal, the money, lands, chattels, and the like, in relation to the suit which is prosecuted and not the direct or wrong committed by the defendant. It is not also a common question of law that sustains a class suit but a common interest in the subject matter of the controversy. (Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank & Trust Co.). There is no class suit when interests are conflicting.
For a class suit to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
[1] The subject matter of the controversy must be of common or general interest to many persons;
[2] The persons are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties;
[3] The parties actually before the court are sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned, and;
[4] The representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all (Sec.12, Rule 3).
Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083; July 30, 1993)
Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an incident to the former.
This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
