NON-JOINDER OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IS NOT GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:

The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases (Domingo v. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235 (2004); Vesagas, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 422 Phil. 860 (2001); Salvador, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 313 Phil. 36 (1995); Cuyugan v. Dizon, 79 Phil. 80 (1947); Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315 (1910) that the misjoinder or non-joinder of indispensable parties in a complaint is not a ground for dismissal of action.

As stated in Macababbad v. Masirag, G.R. No. 161237, January 14, 2009:

Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action, thus:

“Sec. 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 of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately” (emphasis supplied).

In Domingo v. Scheer, the Supreme Court held that the proper remedy when a party is left out is to implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action.  The court, either motu proprio or upon the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the plaintiff opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties.  If the plaintiff to whom the order to include the indispensable party is directed refuses to comply with the order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the court's own motion.  Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to include or to amend is the action dismissed. x x x (ROGER V. NAVARRO, vs. HON. JOSE L. ESCOBIDO, G.R. No.  153788, November 27, 2009, BRION, J.).