Sec. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (Rule 3, Rules of Court)
|
|---|
When is joinder of parties becomes compulsory?
● Normally, a joinder of parties is permissive (Sec. 6, Rule 3); however, the joinder of a party becomes compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party. (Sec. 7, Rule 3)
● Well-settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. It is a condition sine qua non to the exercise of judicial power. 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. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain finality. One who is not 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. (Lagunilla and Monis vs. Velasco and Monis, G.R. No. 169276, June 16, 2009)
Does the failure to join an indispensable party results in the outright dismissal of the action?
● The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. 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 at such times as are just. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, then the court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to comply with a lawful court order. (Lagunilla and Monis vs. Velasco and Monis)
● Indispensable parties must be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Whenever it appears to the court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the trial and to order the inclusion of such party. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations 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. (Uy vs. CA, G.R. No. 157065, July 11, 2006)
Who has the responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties?
The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff. (Moldes vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 161955, August 31, 2005)
● Normally, a joinder of parties is permissive (Sec. 6, Rule 3); however, the joinder of a party becomes compulsory when the one involved is an indispensable party. (Sec. 7, Rule 3)
● Well-settled is the rule that joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. It is a condition sine qua non to the exercise of judicial power. 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. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain finality. One who is not 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. (Lagunilla and Monis vs. Velasco and Monis, G.R. No. 169276, June 16, 2009)
Does the failure to join an indispensable party results in the outright dismissal of the action?
● The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. 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 at such times as are just. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, then the court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs failure to comply with a lawful court order. (Lagunilla and Monis vs. Velasco and Monis)
● Indispensable parties must be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Whenever it appears to the court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined, it is the duty of the court to stop the trial and to order the inclusion of such party. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations 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. (Uy vs. CA, G.R. No. 157065, July 11, 2006)
Who has the responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties?
The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff. (Moldes vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 161955, August 31, 2005)
0 Comments
Post a Comment