D. Parties to Civil Actions (Rule 3) Flashcards
LMT 1-Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately. (11a)
LMT* Section 12. Class suit.
Section 12. Class suit. —
When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest.
LMT 3* Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.
Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel.
Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardianad litemfor the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs.
Section 20.Action and contractual money claims.
Section 20.Action and contractual money claims. —
When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.
Action if the Party Impleaded is NOT Authorized to be a Party
- Plaintiff not authorized
- Defendant not authorized
It can be raised as an affirmative defense based on the following grounds:
- Plaintiff not authorized – the ground that “the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.” (Sec.12(a), Rule 8, ROC, as amended)
- Defendant not authorized – the ground that the “pleading asserting a claim states no cause of action.” (Sec.12(a), Rule 8, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: A complaint cannot possibly state a cause of action against one who cannot be a party to a civil action. (Riano, 2019)
LACK OF LEGAL
CAPACITY TO SUE
It refers to plaintiff’s general disability to sue such as on account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general disqualifications of a party. (Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 1103
Remedy: File an answer and raise as an affirmative defense lack of capacity to sue. (Sec. 12, Rule 8, ROC, as amended
LACK OF LEGAL PERSONALITY TO SUE
The plaintiff is not the real party in interest. (Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, supra.)
Remedy: File an answer and raise as an affirmative defense that the complaint states no cause of action. (Sec. 12, Rule 8, supra.)
Rules with regard to the Right of a Foreign
Corporation to bring Suit in Philippine Courts
- If it does business in the Philippines with the required license, it can sue before Philippine courts on any transaction. (Agilent Technologies v. Integrated Silicon, G.R. No. 154618, 14 Apr. 2004)
- If it does business in the Philippines without a license, it cannot sue before the Philippine courts. (Id.)
- If it is not doing business in the Philippines, it needs no license to sue before Philippine courts on an isolated transaction or on a cause of action entirely independent of any business transaction. (Id.)
- If it is without license to do business and is not doing business in the Philippines is not disqualified from filing and prosecuting an action for unfair competition and may be sued for acts done against a person or persons in the Philippines, or may be sued in Philippine Courts.
- If it does business in the Philippines without license, a Philippine citizen or entity which has contracted with said corporation may be estopped from challenging the foreign corporation’s corporate personality in a suit brought before Philippine courts. (Herrera, 2007)
Rule on Spouses as Parties (L3)
GR: Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly,
except as provided by law.
except p. 48
REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST Definition
He or she is the party who stands to be: (B-I-E)
- Benefited;
- Injured by the judgment in the suit; or 3. The party entitled to the avails of the suit (Sec. 2, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: The interest must be ‘real,’ which is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent subordinate or consequential interest. (Rayo v. Metrobank, G.R. No. 165142, 10 Dec. 2007) It is an interest that is material and direct, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the question. (Samaniego v. Aguila, G.R. No. 125567, 27 June 2007)
Q: Miñoza is a duly licensed owner operator of a cockpit. His temporary license to operate a new cockpit was revoked. Thereafter, a public bidding for a 25-year franchise of the cockpit operation was opened. Among four of the qualified parties that submitted their cash bids were Marcelo Epe and Miñoz’s uncle, Jose Uy. Miñoza did not personally join the bidding. Marcelo won in the public bidding and was granted the franchise. Miñoza filed a case to annul the bidding process and grant of franchise to Marcelo. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Can Miñoza file the suit?
A: NO. Miñoza, not being one of the bidders clearly has no personality to contest the alleged rigged bidding and grant of the franchise to Marcelo. Every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
By real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest” (Miñoza v. Lopez, G.R. No. 170914, 13 Apr. 2011)
Q: The heirs of Hilaria and Elena affirmed the waiver of rights over a property in favor of Francisca. However, some of the heirs refused to do so. This prompted Francisca to file an action for quieting of title. Estanislao De Vera, not a named defendant in the case, filed an answer, presenting himself as the real party-in-interest on the ground that some of the named defendants executed a Deed of Renunciation of Rights in his favor. The RTC admitted his answer but, later on, set it aside and ordered him to file a pleading-in-intervention. Can De Vera participate in the case without filing a pleadingin-intervention
A: YES. De Vera is not a stranger to the action but a transferee pendente lite. His interest cannot be considered and tried separately from the interest of the named defendants as his rights were derived from them. De Vera’s interest is not independent of the interest of the named defendants. There may be no need for the transferee pendente lite to be substituted or joined in the case because, in legal contemplation, he is not really denied protection as his interest is one and the same as his transferors, who are already parties to the case (Medrano v. De Vera, G.R. No. 165770, 2010 9 Aug. 2010)
Sole Proprietorship has No Juridical Personality Separate and Distinct from the Personality of the Owner
The law merely recognizes the existence of a sole proprietorship as a form of business organization conducted for profit by a single individual and requires its proprietor or owner to secure licenses and permits, register its business name, and pay taxes to the national government. The law does not vest a separate legal personality on the sole proprietorship or empower it to file or defend an action in court. The proprietor or proprietress can be considered as a real party-in-interest and has a standing to file a case. (Stanley Fine Furniture, Elena v. Gallano, G.R. No. 190486, 26 Nov. 2014)
Pro forma Party
One who is joined as a plaintiff or defendant, not because such party has any real interest in the subject matter or because any relief is demanded, but merely because the technical rules of pleadings require the presence of such party on the record. (Samaniego v. Agulia, G.R. No. 125567, 27 June 2000)
