D3. Parties to Civil Actions (Rule 3) Flashcards
Compulsory Joinder of Parties (2009 BAR)
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he or may join any or all of them in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right to relief against the other. (Sec. 13, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
The joinder of parties becomes compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party. (Riano, 2019) The plaintiff is mandated to implead all the indispensable parties, considering that the absence of one such party renders all subsequent action 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. One who is a party to a case is not bound by any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to due process. (Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195, 31 Jan. 2005)
Effect of Failure to Join an Indispensable Party (2015, 2017 BAR)
The presence of indispensable parties is a condition for the exercise of juridical power and when an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed. (Riano, 2019, citing Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. No. 159794, 19 Dec. 2006)
However, an outright dismissal is not the immediate remedy authorized because, under the Rules, misjoinder/non-joinder of parties is NOT a ground for dismissal. It is when the order of the court to implead an indispensable party goes unheeded may the case be dismissed. In such a case, the court may dismiss the complaint due to the fault of the plaintiff as when he does not comply with any order of the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17, ROC, as amended) such as an order to join indispensable parties. (Riano, 2019, citing Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519, 31 Mar. 2009)
Effect of Non-Joinder of a Necessary Party
- The court may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained;
- The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party;
- The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
Requisites of Permissive Joinder of Parties
(2002 BAR)
- Right to relief arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions (connected with the same subject matter of the suit); and
- There is a question of law or fact common to all the plaintiffs or defendants.
NOTE: There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when doubt arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. (Manila Bay Club Corp. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 110015, 11 Jan. 1995)
Rationale of Permissive Joinder of Parties
The purpose and aim of the principle is to have controversies and the matters directly related thereto settled once and for all once they are brought to the courts for determination. Litigation is costly both to litigants and to the State, and the objective of procedure is to limit its number or extent. In consonance with the above principle, we have the rules against multiplicity of suits, the rule of estoppel by judgment (Sec. 44, Rule 39, ROC, as amended), and the rule of res judicata. (Sec. 45, Rule 39, ROC, as amended; Fajardo v. Bayano, G.R. No. L8314, 23 Mar. 1956)
Q: When may the court order the joinder of a
necessary party? (1998 BAR)
A: If the reason given for the non-joinder of the necessary party is found by the court to be unmeritorious, it may order the pleader to join the omitted party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the order of the court to include a necessary party, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
MISJOINDER OF
PARTIES v. NON-JOINDER OF PTYS
He or she is made a party to an action although he should not be impleaded. (Riano, 2019)
If there is a claim against a party misjoined, the same may be severed and proceeded with separately. (Sec. 11, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NON-JOINDER
He or she is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action. (Riano, 2019)
Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted, a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. (Sec. 9, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
Is Misjoinder & Non-joinder are grounds for dismissal?
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by the court on motion of any party or motu proprio at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. (Sec. 11, Rule 3, ROC, as amended) (2015, 2017 BAR)
However, even if neither is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint based on the failure of the plaintiff to comply with a court order. (Sec. 3, Rule 17, ROC as amended; Riano, 2019)
Q: Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for cancellation of title. Wagner moved to dismiss the complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the property as duly annotated in the TCT, was not impleaded as defendant. a.) Should the complaint be dismissed? b.) If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being impleaded as a party to the case, what is his remedy to protect his interest? (2015 BAR)
A: NO. The complaint should not be dismissed. The Supreme Court has held that non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground of a motion to dismiss. (Vesagas v. CA, G.R. No. 142924. 05 Dec. 2001) Here although Grieg, the registered mortgagee, is an indispensable party (Metrobank v. Alejo, G.R. No. 141970. 10 Sept. 2001), his nonjoinder does not warrant the dismissal of the complaint. The remedy of Grieg is to file a motion for leave to intervene. Under Rule 19, a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation may intervene in the action. Here Grieg is a mortgagee and such fact was annotated in the title. Hence, he has a legal interest in the title subject-matter of the litigation and may thus intervene in the case.
Requisites of Class Suit (S-I-N-B) (2005 BAR)
- Subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;
- Parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court;
- Parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can fully protect the interests of all concerned; and
- Representatives sue or defend for the benefit of all. (Sec. 12, Rule 3; Sulo ng Bayan v. Araneta, G.R. No. L-31061, 17 Aug. 1976)
SUITS AGAINST ENTITIES
WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY
When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. (Sec. 15, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY LITIGANT (1999 BAR)
When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known. In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed. (Sec. 15, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
EFFECT OF DEATH OF PARTY LITIGANT (1999 BAR)
Purely personal action –
Action that is not purely personal –
Action for recovery of money arising from
contract and the defendant dies before entry
of final judgment
- Purely personal action – the death of either of the parties extinguishes the claim and the action is dismissed.
- Action that is not purely personal – claim is not extinguished and the party should be substituted by his heirs, executor or administrator. In case of minor heirs, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for them.
- Action for recovery of money arising from contract and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment – it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff shall be enforced in the manner provided in the rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person (Rule 86, ROC). (Sec. 20, Rule 3, ROC, as amended)
NOTE: Since the action survives the death of the defendant, the case shall not be dismissed and the Court shall merely order the substitution of the deceased defendant. (Atty. Sarsaba v. Vda. De Te, G.R. No. 175910, 30 July 2009) (2014 BAR)
The substitute defendant need not be summoned. The order of substitution shall be served upon the parties substituted for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the substitute party (Riano, 2019). If there is notice of death, the court should await the appointment of a legal representative; otherwise, subsequent proceedings are void. (1999 BAR)
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
THAT SURVIVE
- Recovery of contractual money /claims (oral or written) (1999 BAR);
- Recovery/protection of property rights;
- Recovery of real or personal property or interest;
- Enforcement of lien;
- Recovery of damages for an injury to person or property and suits by reason of the alleged tortuous acts of the defendant (Board of Liquidators v. Kalaw, G.R. No. L-18805, 14 Aug. 1967);
- Actions and obligations arising from delicts (Aguas v. Llemos, G.R. No. L18107, 30 Aug. 1962); and 7. Ejectment case (Tanhueco v. Aguilar, G.R. No. L-30369, 29 May 1970)
CLAIMS/ACTIONS THAT DO NOT SURVIVE
- Purely Personal (e.g., Legal Separation);
- Performance that cannot be purely delegated; and
- Claim that cannot be instituted by executor or administrator.
