CIVIL PROCEDURE: INDISPENSABLE PARTIES MUST BE IMPLEADED IN THE ACTION IN ORDER TO ATTAIN REAL FINALITY

Section 7, Rule 3 of the New Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action and who, for this reason, must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants.

Jurisprudence further holds that a party is indispensable, not only if he has an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also if his interest is such that a final decree cannot be made without affecting this interest or without placing the controversy in a situation where the final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person whose absence disallows the court from making an effective, complete, or equitable determination of the controversy between or among the contending parties (See Moldes v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 161955, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 697, 707-708; Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 602, 612 (1999) cited in MARMO vs. ANACAY, G.R. No. 182585, November 27, 2009, Second Division, Brion, J.).

In Domingo v. Scheer, G.R. No. 154745, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 468, the High 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. (NOCOM vs. CAMERINO, G.R. No. 182984, February 10, 2009, First Division, Azcuna, J.).