Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. vs.

Dela Cruz

There were a number of employees who filed a labor complaint against petitioner Lotte
for illegal dismissal, regularization and payment of backwages. However, there was an
assertion made by the respondent that they were not employees of Lotte. They were
actually employees of 7J which is a labor only contractor.

The LA declared 7J as employer of respondents and guilty of illegal dismissal. On appeal,

the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. On appeal, the CA set aside the rulings of the
LA and the NLRC.

Issues
Whether 7J is an indispensable party and should have been impleaded in respondents’
petition in the Court of Appeals.

Ruling: Yes.
An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be
had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of
indispensable parties is mandatory. The presence of indispensable parties is necessary
to vest the court with jurisdiction, which is “the authority to hear and determine a cause,
the right to act in a case.”

In the case at bar, 7J is an indispensable party. It is a party in interest because it will be

affected by the outcome of the case. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found 7J to be
solely liable as the employer of respondents. The Court of Appeals however rendered
Lotte jointly and severally liable with 7J who was not impleaded by holding that the former
is the real employer of respondents. Plainly, its decision directly affected 7J.

WHEREFORE, the July 9, 2004 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
72732 and the November 26, 2004 resolution, are SET ASIDE. Let the case be
REMANDED to the Court of Appeals to include 7J Maintenance and Janitorial Services
as an indispensable party to the case for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

They have to require the employees to implead 7J as an indispensable party because

according to the SC, they will not be able to have a clear outcome of the case without
impleading 7J.
The case was remanded to the Labor Arbiter (LA) to include 7J which is a maintenance
and janitorial services as indespensable party before they proceed with the determination.
Rule 3 Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff.
 If the consent of any party who should be
joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason
therefor shall be stated in the complaint.

There will be instances na - you want to file a complmaint against t aparty – takot to
become a coplaintiff – but its impratn t- because you want to porint out – na hindi lang
ako nag argyabyado – he desnt want to share the docket fee – iyour remedy is to implead
them as defednatn - it doenst mean na kalaban mo siya. Nominal defendant only – you
have to tsatte they are nominal defneant because they don’t want tot be mad a coplaintiff
e.g. case here in maakti - these are parties - ina a resediatantail area
Defendant built a high rise next to their house- they had to get permits from the enignner’s
office – they got the permits- they started the construction – all the debris nahuhulog sa
bahay na bungalow – to make it worse – the owners were not notified – they cpkained to
the engoeer’s offcei ditto sa makatiat – dapat sumama kayo samin – bec the enoger’s
office – but hey only aggeed to this heght – hey went beyond what they ere supposed to
construct – sabi naman ng owenrs – eh di dapat, you should – you now,pala htat they
uovlated – why don’t you stop them – kayo nalang – bakit ayaw niyo? so they impedaed
the engeiier’s office as defednats and saisd in their complaint ebcasue they - went ot the
engienr’s office- inffomed them that the fedenfaten vuioalted the terms of theor
csontruction – but when the plmaitif was asking the engering office to sht them donw –
they refused – we had no coice – thy are unwling co plaintiff – sila dpaat mag file – it’s
their reuglations being violated
What happens – bakit ayaw niy o – sige magwiwintess na kami. that’s what you get when
you have ana unwilling co plaintiff sont hat it will work in your favor – I have students –
you told me about this - I love to herar those stories
HTen we already discussed midjoiner and non-joinder of parties – neither misjoinder and
nonjoinder are grounds for dimsisal for an action – because you can either add or drop
parties qith the papproval fo the court – its no big deal
e.g. you are paintiff ayou want to file against several pepel – eif you want to settle
TWENTY NINE
mabait siya sayo, sabihij natin – yung 100 – like dendefnat A –so you say sige 50k nalang
- iw ont tell aybody that I settled – I’ll just sya tha we hvad an amicable settlement – can
that be done? Yes – obligation is not solidaty – you can file the aporpatiate motion – they
had come to an undertandint s- dropped as party depfendat –
Also, any clai against he misjoined may be servered and proceeded serpated – e.g. you
have 3 persons – they – you think all of thenm owe you money – yun ala di pa due and
mdenadebla enung bayad ng utang sayo – naawa ka, longer moratuprium –at that point
in time – no cause of action – you can drop him and proceed against hjim later on –
anyway, all of those –