This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-11-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| So now we come to the discussion concerning indispensable and necessary parties. When an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should likewise be dismissed.[23] The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations of the court void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[24] On the other hand, the non-joinder of necessary parties do not result in the dismissal of the case. Instead, Section 9, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides for the consequences of such non-joinder:Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. | |||||