This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Yet, again, PLDT and its foreign shareholders have not been given notice of this petition to appear before, much less heard by, this Court. Nonetheless, the majority has allowed such irregularity in contravention of the settled jurisprudence that an action cannot proceed unless indispensable parties are joined[93] since the non-joinder of these indispensable parties deprives the court the jurisdiction to issue a decision binding on the indispensable parties that have not been joined or impleaded. In other words, if an indispensable party is not impleaded, any personal judgment would have no effectiveness[94] as to them for the tribunal's want of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2009-01-14 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Domingo v. Scheer,[50] this Court held that the proper remedy when a party is left out is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action.The court, either motu proprio or upon the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the plaintiff opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties. If the plaintiff to whom the order to include the indispensable party is directed refuses to comply with the order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion.[51] Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed.[52] | |||||