GO Insurance Corporation (PDIC) — were filed before the RTC against various
accused, including Go and Dela Rosa (respondents),6 charging them of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents for allegedly G.R. No. 201644. September 24, 2014.* defrauding Orient Commercial Banking Corporation of the amount of P159,000,000.00.7 After numerous postponements, respondents were finally PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JOSE C. GO and AIDA C. arraigned on November 13, 2001 and trial on the merits then ensued. 8 DELA ROSA, respondents. _______________ 1 Rollo, pp. 9-59. 2 Id., at pp. 65-99. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Indispensable Parties; The Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias, absence of such indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the concurring. court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent 3 Id., at pp. 101-102. parties but even as to those present.—While the failure to implead an 4 Id., at pp. 103-104. Penned by Presiding Judge Dinnah C. Aguila- indispensable party is not per sea ground for the dismissal of an action, Topacio. considering that said party may still be added by order of the court, on motion 5 Id., at p. 105. of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such 6 Also indicted in Crim. Case Nos. 00-186069-75 were Richard L. Hsu times as are just, it remains essential — as it is jurisdictional — that any and Arnulfo Aurellano; id., at p. 12. indispensable party be impleaded in the proceedings before the court 7 Id., at p. 78. renders judgment. This is because the absence of such indispensable party 8 Id., at pp. 67-68. renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority 503 to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present. VOL. 736, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 503 PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court People vs. Go of Appeals. However, the trial of the case was marred by a series of The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. postponements/cancellation of hearings caused mainly by the The Solicitor General for petitioner. prosecution,9 resulting in its inability to finish its presentation of evidence De Sagun Law Office for respondents. despite the lapse of almost five (5) years. 10 This prompted respondents to _______________ file, on December 11, 2007, a Motion to Dismiss11 for failure to prosecute * FIRST DIVISION. and for violation of their right to speedy trial,12 claiming that the 502 prosecution was afforded all the opportunity to complete and terminate its 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED case, but still to no avail. People vs. Go PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: The RTC’s Ruling
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and Perez,
JJ., concur. Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside. Notes.—Section 7, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines indispensable parties to be “parties-in-interest without whom no final