Lawyerly

GR No. 196750

2015-03-11

MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA v. CORONACION PARILLA

PERLAS-BERNABE, 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. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.[30] Thus, 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]

GR No. 169958

2010-03-05

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ v. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI

CARPIO, J.

However, the courts are not precluded from reviewing the findings of the BI. Judicial review is permitted if the courts believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct.[16] When the evidence submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.[17] Courts may review the actions of the administrative offices authorized to deport aliens and reverse their rulings when there is no evidence to sustain the rulings.[18]

GR No.153788

2009-11-27

ROGER V. NAVARRO v. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO

BRION, J.

Even assuming that Glenn Go is an indispensable party to the action, we have held in a number of cases[26] that the misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action. As we stated in Macababbad v. Masirag:[27]

GR No. 182984

2009-02-10

MARIANO NOCOM v. OSCAR CAMERINO

AZCUNA, J.

In Domingo v. Scheer,[8] the Court explained that the non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules, as amended, requires indispensable parties to be joined as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void. There is lack of authority to act not only of the absent party but also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner or plaintiff. However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. 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 such times as are just. If the petitioner or plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint or petition for the petitioner or plaintiff's failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. In the present case, the RTC and the CA did not require the respondents to implead Atty. Santos as party-defendant or respondent in the case. The operative act that would lead to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 05-172 would be the refusal of respondents to comply with the directive of the court for the joinder of an indispensable party to the case.

GR No. 161237

2009-01-14

PERFECTO MACABABBAD v. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG

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]

GR No. 169454

2007-12-27

DORONIO v. HEIRS OF FORTUNATO DORONIO

REYES, R.T., J.

Thus, the RTC totally failed to give respondents their day in court. As a result, they cannot be bound by its orders. Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.[60]

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. 169596

2007-03-28

SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Petitioner's failure to implead indispensable parties is not, of course, fatal to its cause of action, misjoinder or non-joinder of parties not being a ground for its dismissal.[28] Domingo v. Scheer[29] elucidates:However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. 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 such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the petitioner/plaintiff's failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

GR NO. 160922

2006-02-27

JEANY-VI G. KIANI v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The CA acted in accord with jurisprudence when it affirmed the ruling of the RTC declaring that it had no jurisdiction over petitioner's plea to set aside the Summary Deportation Order issued by the BOC against her husband Javed Kiani. Under Section 8, Chapter 3, Title I, Book III of Executive Order No. 292, the power to deport aliens is vested on the President of the Philippines, subject to the requirements of due process. The Immigration Commissioner is vested with authority to deport aliens under Section 37 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. Thus, a party aggrieved by a Deportation Order issued by the BOC is proscribed from assailing said Order in the RTC even via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Conformably with ruling of the Court in Domingo v. Scheer,[36] such party may file a motion for the reconsideration thereof before the BOC. The Court ruled therein that "there is no law or rule which provides that a Summary Deportation Order issued by the BOC in the exercise of its authority becomes final after one year from its issuance, or that the aggrieved party is barred from filing a motion for a reconsideration of any order or decision of the BOC." The Court, likewise, declared that in deportation proceedings, the Rules of Court may be applied in a suppletory manner and that the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of a decision or final order under Rule 37 of said Rules.[37]

GR NO. 161955

2005-08-31

CELEDONIO MOLDES v. TIBURCIO VILLANUEVA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. A party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.[26] In Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo v. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer,[27] the Court held that the joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, with no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff.

GR No. 166302

2005-07-28

LOTTE PHIL. CO. v. ERLINDA DELA CRUZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action,[15] and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.[16] The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.[17] 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".[18] Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real finality.[19] 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.[20]

	GR No. 196750 2015-03-11	MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA v. CORONACION PARILLA PERLAS-BERNABE, 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. In his absence, there cannot be a resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.[30] Thus, 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]
	GR No. 169958 2010-03-05	DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ v. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI CARPIO, J.
However, the courts are not precluded from reviewing the findings of the BI. Judicial review is permitted if the courts believe that there is substantial evidence supporting the claim of citizenship, so substantial that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the claim is correct.[16] When the evidence submitted by a deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings.[17] Courts may review the actions of the administrative offices authorized to deport aliens and reverse their rulings when there is no evidence to sustain the rulings.[18]
	GR No.153788 2009-11-27	ROGER V. NAVARRO v. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO BRION, J.
Even assuming that Glenn Go is an indispensable party to the action, we have held in a number of cases[26] that the misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action. As we stated in Macababbad v. Masirag:[27]
	GR No. 182984 2009-02-10	MARIANO NOCOM v. OSCAR CAMERINO AZCUNA, J.
In Domingo v. Scheer,[8] the Court explained that the non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules, as amended, requires indispensable parties to be joined as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void. There is lack of authority to act not only of the absent party but also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner or plaintiff. However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. 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 such times as are just. If the petitioner or plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint or petition for the petitioner or plaintiff's failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. In the present case, the RTC and the CA did not require the respondents to implead Atty. Santos as party-defendant or respondent in the case. The operative act that would lead to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 05-172 would be the refusal of respondents to comply with the directive of the court for the joinder of an indispensable party to the case.
	GR No. 161237 2009-01-14	PERFECTO MACABABBAD v. FERNANDO G. MASIRAG 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]
	GR No. 169454 2007-12-27	DORONIO v. HEIRS OF FORTUNATO DORONIO REYES, R.T., J.
Thus, the RTC totally failed to give respondents their day in court. As a result, they cannot be bound by its orders. Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.[60]
	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. 169596 2007-03-28	SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner's failure to implead indispensable parties is not, of course, fatal to its cause of action, misjoinder or non-joinder of parties not being a ground for its dismissal.[28] Domingo v. Scheer[29] elucidates:However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. 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 such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the petitioner/plaintiff's failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
	GR NO. 160922 2006-02-27	JEANY-VI G. KIANI v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The CA acted in accord with jurisprudence when it affirmed the ruling of the RTC declaring that it had no jurisdiction over petitioner's plea to set aside the Summary Deportation Order issued by the BOC against her husband Javed Kiani. Under Section 8, Chapter 3, Title I, Book III of Executive Order No. 292, the power to deport aliens is vested on the President of the Philippines, subject to the requirements of due process. The Immigration Commissioner is vested with authority to deport aliens under Section 37 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. Thus, a party aggrieved by a Deportation Order issued by the BOC is proscribed from assailing said Order in the RTC even via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Conformably with ruling of the Court in Domingo v. Scheer,[36] such party may file a motion for the reconsideration thereof before the BOC. The Court ruled therein that "there is no law or rule which provides that a Summary Deportation Order issued by the BOC in the exercise of its authority becomes final after one year from its issuance, or that the aggrieved party is barred from filing a motion for a reconsideration of any order or decision of the BOC." The Court, likewise, declared that in deportation proceedings, the Rules of Court may be applied in a suppletory manner and that the aggrieved party may file a motion for reconsideration of a decision or final order under Rule 37 of said Rules.[37]
	GR NO. 161955 2005-08-31	CELEDONIO MOLDES v. TIBURCIO VILLANUEVA CALLEJO, SR., J.
An indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest. A party who has not only an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also has an interest of such nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person in whose absence there cannot be a determination between the parties already before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.[26] In Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo v. Herbert Markus Emil Scheer,[27] the Court held that the joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void, with no authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present. The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff.
	GR No. 166302 2005-07-28	LOTTE PHIL. CO. v. ERLINDA DELA CRUZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action,[15] and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.[16] The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.[17] 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".[18] Thus, without the presence of indispensable parties to a suit or proceeding, judgment of a court cannot attain real finality.[19] 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.[20]

COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO v. HERBERT MARKUS EMIL SCHEER