You are on page 1of 2

Lucman v.

Malawi (Short title) - For failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, Lucman was held as in
GR # 159794 | December 19, 2006 default and Malawi’s grou[ were allowed to present evidence ex parte but his
Petition: Petition for review challenging the decision of RTC affirmed by CA Motion for Reconsideration of the Order was granted
Petitioner: Maclaring M. Lucman, in his capacity as the Manager of the Land Bank of -
the Philippines, Marawi City - After failing again to appear, another Order was issued wherein petitioner
Respondent: Alimatar Malawi, Abdul-Khayer Pangcoga, Salimatar Sarip, Lomala was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and again, the
Cadar, Aliriba S. Macarambon and Abdul Usman Order was lifted on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration but instead of
(Rule 3, Rules on Civil Procedure) presenting evidence, he filed a Motion to Dispense or Waive Presentation of
Evidence wherein he represented that the prayers in the complaint had
DOCTRINE already been complied with.
Indispensable party is parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final - RTC: Commanded Lucman to pay all chairmen, except Malawi who failed to
determination of an action. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. testify, the IRAs of their respective barangays "even without the Accountant's
Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. Advice."
o Considered Lucman's refusal to present evidence as a "silence"
FACTS that equates to an admission of allegations and relied on the
- The petition for mandamus filed by Malawi et. al before the trial court is testimonies and certifications adduced that they were occupying
rooted on their allegation that they were deprived of their Internal Revenue their positions in a holdover capacity.
Allotment (IRA) for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997 and that Lucman - CA: Affirmed
released it to third persons.
- Malawi et. al were all incumbent barangay chairmen of their respective Hence, this petition.
barangays prior to the 1997 barangay elections but the election and the
subsequent special election failed so they remained in office in a holdover ISSUE/S
capacity. 1. W/N Mandamus is proper
- In the second quarter of 1997, LBP was selected as the government 2. W/N there are indispensable parties which were not impleaded
depository bank for the IRAs of the barangay. Being a new government
depositary bank for the IRA funds, the authorized public officials had to open
new accounts in behalf of their government units from which they could PROVISIONS
withdraw the IRAs.
- After the failed elections, Malawi et. al attempted to open their respective Rule 3
IRA bank accounts but were refused by petitioner because they were
required to show their individual certifications that they will continue serving Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom any
as Barangay Chairmen and the requisite Municipal Accountant's Advice right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
giving the authority to withdraw IRA deposits. transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may,
- Malawi et. al were eventually allowed to open accounts except for Cadar and except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
Usman because the accounts for their barangays were previously opened by defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such
two persons who presented themselves as the duly proclaimed Chairmen. plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make
o However, all were not allowed to withdraw from the opened such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
accounts, owing to the absence of the Accountant's Advice embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may
- Five (5) other persons presented themselves before LBP as the newly have no interest. (6n)
proclaimed Punong Barangays of the five barangays concerned with each of
them presenting a certification of his election issued by the provincial director RULING & RATIO
of the DILG-ARMM and another Certification issued by the Local 1. NO
Government Operations Officer attesting the revocation of the certification - Although the pleading filed before the lower court was denominated as a
previously issued to malwi’s group. Petition for Mandamus With Prayer For Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the
o LBP proceeded to release the IRA funds for the 2nd and 3rd allegations thereof indicate that it is an action for specific performance,
quarters of 1997 to them particularly to compel petitioner to allow withdrawal of funds
- This promptem the filing of a special civil action for Mandamus with - The barangays are the lenders while the bank is the borrower.
Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to compel Lucman to allow - The relationship being contractual in nature, mandamus is therefore not an
them to open and maintain deposit accounts covering the IRAs of their available remedy since mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance
respective barangays and to withdraw therefrom. of contractual obligations.

Page 1 of 2

WHEREFORE. Page 2 of 2 . Neither did the barangay chairmen file the suit in representation of their respective barangays. the barangays are indispensable parties in this case. Hence. Indispensable party is parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. This case was not initiated by the barangays themselves. through the proper authorization from the barangays as juridical entities. The case in the lower court should have been dismissed. premises considered. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Strangers to a case are DISPOSITION not bound by the judgment rendered by the court.2. the petition is GRANTED. . the barangays are the only lawful SET ASIDE. . The assailed . YES . The IRA funds for which the bank accounts were created belong to the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and barangays headed by respondents thus. The Petition for Mandamus filed before the Regional Trial Court is recipients of these funds so any transaction or claim can be done only ordered DISMISSED.