Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOTTE PHIL. CO. v. ERLINDA DELA CRUZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201644 2014-09-24	PEOPLE v. JOSE C. GO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
While the failure to implead an indispensable party is not per se a ground for the dismissal of an action, considering that said party may still be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just,[31] it remains essential as it is jurisdictional that any indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before the court renders judgment. This is because the absence of such indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. As explained in Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz:[32]
	GR No. 193753 2012-09-26	LIVING v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The nature of the solidary obligation under the surety does not make one an indispensable party.[17] An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined mandatorily either as plaintiffs or defendants. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, thus, without their presence to a suit or proceeding, the judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[18]
	GR No. 182645 2010-12-15	IN MATTER OF HEIRSHIP OF LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ v. JAIME M. ROBLES PERALTA, J.
In Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[5] this Court ruled as follows: An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case." Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[6]
	GR NO. 169276 2009-06-16	DIONISIA MONIS LAGUNILLA v. ANDREA MONIS VELASCO NACHURA, J.
Nevertheless, as enunciated in Commissioner Domingo v. Scheer,[32] Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. v. Dela Cruz,[33] and PepsiCo, Inc. v. Emerald Pizza, Inc.,[34] the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or at such times as are just. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, then the court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's failure to comply with a lawful court order.
	GR No. 168747 2007-10-19	VICTORIA REGNER v. CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Applying the foregoing definitions and principles to the present case, this Court finds that any decision in Civil Case No. CEB 23927 cannot bind Cynthia, and the Court cannot nullify the donation of the property she now co-owns with Teresa, even if limited only to the portion belonging to Teresa, to whom summons was properly served, since ownership of the property is still pro indiviso. Obviously, Cynthia is an indispensable party in Civil Case No. CEB 23927 without whom the lower court is barred from making a final adjudication as to the validity of the entire donation. Without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, a judgment therein cannot attain finality.[19]
	GR No. 161735 2007-09-25	EX-C1C JIMMY B. SANCHEZ v. ROBERTO T. LASTIMOSO NACHURA, J.
Also improper is the trial court's declaration that NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 99-061 is void ab initio. In the petition filed below, only the Chief of the PNP is impleaded as the party-defendant.[30] NAPOLCOM was never impleaded. As it was the latter, a separate entity, which had issued Resolution No. 99-061, NAPOLCOM was an indispensable party over which the trial court should have acquired jurisdiction. Since it was not impleaded, NAPOLCOM remains a stranger to the case, and strangers are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court.[31] The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[32]
	GR NO. 153059 2007-08-14	PEPSICO v. EMERALD PIZZA NACHURA, J.
Notably, however, while PepsiCo was properly impleaded as a party defendant, Pizza Hut, an indispensable party, was not. An indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant.[30] The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Their presence is necessary to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is "the authority to hear and determine a cause, the right to act in a case." Thus, without their presence to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real finality. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.[31]