This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-07-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Regner does not involve the non-filing of a motion to set case for pre-trial, but the failure to serve summons on respondents in a Complaint for declaration of nullity of deed of donation filed in June 1999.[50] | |||||
|
2014-06-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action; thus, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made in its absence without injuring or affecting that interest.[137] Insofar as this case is originally concerned, PSALM was not an indispensable party. | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It has long been established and settled that the question of whether a case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute is mainly addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.[25] Pursuant to Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, a court can dismiss a case on the ground of failure to prosecute. The true test for the exercise of such power is whether, under the prevailing circumstances, the plaintiff is culpable for want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude.[26] As to what constitutes "unreasonable length of time," this Court has ruled that it depends on the circumstances of each particular case and that "the sound discretion of the court" in the determination of the said question will not be disturbed, in the absence of patent abuse.[27] The Court, however, in the case of Belonio v. Rodriguez,[28] held that: The power of the trial court to dismiss an action for non-prosequitur is not without its limits. If a pattern or scheme to delay the disposition of the case or a wanton failure to observe the mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the plaintiff is not present, as in this case, courts should not wield their authority to dismiss. Indeed, while the dismissal rests on the prerogative of the trial court, it must soundly be exercised and not be abused, as there must be sufficient reason to justify its extinctive effect on the plaintiff's cause of action. Deferment of proceedings may be tolerated so that the court, aimed at a just and inexpensive determination of the action, may adjudge cases only after a full and free presentation of all the evidence by both parties. In this regard, courts are reminded to exert earnest efforts to resolve the matters before them on the merits, and adjudicate the case in accord with the relief sought by the parties so that appeals may be discouraged; otherwise, in hastening the proceedings, they further delay the final settlement of the case. | |||||
|
2012-11-26 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Until the summons has been served on Ang, the case cannot proceed since Ang is an indispensable party to the case; Pua alleged in his complaint that the respondents are co-owners of JD Grains Center.[25] An indispensable party is one who must be included in an action before it may properly go forward. A court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of indispensable parties before it can validly pronounce judgments personal to the parties. 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.[26] | |||||
|
2010-08-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| xxx under any and all conditions, [her] presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power. It is precisely "when an indispensable party is not before the court [that] the action should be dismissed." 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.[21] | |||||
|
2009-07-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This Court, in the recent case of Regner v. Logarta, et al.,[31] thoroughly discussed the nature and definition of an indispensable party, thus: Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power.[32] It is precisely "when an indispensable party is not before the court [that] the action should be dismissed."[33] 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.[34] | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The general rule with reference to parties to a civil action requires the joinder of all necessary parties, where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions.[18] The evident intent of the Rules on the joinder of indispensable and necessary parties is the complete determination of all possible issues, not only between the parties themselves but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment.[19] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| This contention is not well-taken. In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or the recovery of damages.[38] Real actions, on the other hand, are those affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein. In accordance with the wordings of Sec. 1 of Rule 4, the venue of real actions shall be the proper court which has territorial jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. The venue of personal actions is the court where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.[39] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Since there was no service of summons on Barnes, the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over Barnes and the trial court's order of default and the judgment by default are void.[10] The trial court should have refrained from issuing the default order when E. Himan Law Office manifested that it did not represent Barnes who had not engaged its services. It would have been more prudent for the trial court at that point to order the deputy sheriff to serve the summons on Barnes himself by handing it to him personally. | |||||