This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Conversely, the indispensable parties in this case are not only the Cuaycong brothers but also the petitioners. An indispensable party is one whose interest in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.[57] On the contrary, a party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court.[58] | |||||
|
2015-08-19 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Relatedly, respondents neither argued nor showed that the causes of action against the defendants are the same and that they are all indispensable parties as to benefit from the dismissal of a case as a result of the Compromise Agreement. It is settled that for a defendant to benefit from the compromise agreement executed between the plaintiff and the other defendants, it must be established that: (1) the plaintiff alleged a common cause of action against the defendants; and (2) all the defendants are indispensable parties to the case. This was the crux of the Court's ruling in Imson v. Court of Appeals,[66] viz.:In sum, Lim Tanhu states that where a complaint alleges a common cause of action against defendants who are all indispensable parties to the case, its dismissal against any of them by virtue of a compromise agreement with the plaintiff necessarily results in the dismissal of the case against the other defendants, including those in default. The ruling is rooted on the rationale that the court's power to act in a case involving a common cause of action against indispensable parties is integral and cannot be split such that it cannot relieve any of them and at the same time render judgment against the rest. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2006-07-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.[16] | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to Mrs. Cerezo's assertion, Foronda is not an indispensable party to the case. An indispensable party is one whose interest is affected by the court's action in the litigation, and without whom no final resolution of the case is possible.[39] | |||||