This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-20 |
LEONEN, 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, 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.[131] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) | |||||
|
2016-01-20 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Alejo[132] and Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,[133] this court clarified that the courts must first acquire jurisdiction over the person of an indispensable party. Any decision rendered by a court without first obtaining the required jurisdiction over indispensable parties is null and void for want of jurisdiction: "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.'"[134] | |||||
|
2016-01-20 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Divinagracia v. Parilla,[135] Macawadib v. Philippine National Police Directorate for Personnel and Records Management,[136] People v. Go,[137] and Valdez-Tallorin v. Heirs of Tarona,[138] among others, this court annulled judgments rendered by lower courts in the absence of indispensible parties. | |||||