Parties in interest

without whom no
final determination
can be had of an
action shall be joined
either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (Sec. 7,
Rule 3)
Must be joined under
any and all conditions
because the court
cannot proceed
without him or her.
(Riano, 2014)
A necessary party is
one who is not
indispensable but
who ought to be
joined as a party if:
1. Complete relief is
to be accorded as
to those already
parties; or
2. For a complete
determination or
settlement of the
claim subject of
the action. (Sec. 8,
Rule 3)
Necessary parties
should be joined
whenever possible;
however, the action
can proceed even in
their absence because
his interest is
separable from that of
indispensable party.
(Ibid.)
No valid judgment if
they are not joined.
The case may be
determined in court
but the judgment
therein will not afford
a complete relief in
favor of the prevailing
party.
Rule when the defendant’s name or identity
is unknown
He may be sued as the unknown owner, heir,
devisee, or by such other designation as the
case may require. However, when his identity
or true name is discovered, the pleading must
be amended accordingly. (Sec. 14, Rule 3)
INDIGENT PARTY (2016 BAR)
He or she is one:
1. Whose gross income and that of his
immediate family do not exceed an amount
double the monthly minimum wage of an
employee
NOTE: The term "immediate family" includes
those members of the same household who
are bound together by ties of relationship
but does not include those who are living
apart from the particular household of which
the individual is a member (Tokio Marine
Malaya v. Valdez, G.R. No. 150107-08, January
28, 2008); and
2. Who does not own real property with a fair
market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than Php 300,000.00.
(Sec. 19, Rule 141 as amended by A.M. No. 04-
2-04-SC)
He or she is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family.
(Sec. 21, Rule 3)
NOTE: He or she shall be exempt from the
payment of legal fees.
For purposes of a suit in forma pauperis, an
indigent litigant is not really a pauper, but is
properly a person who is an indigent although
not a public charge, meaning that he has no
property or income sufficient for his support
aside from his labor, even if he is selfsupporting
when able to work and in
employment. (Tokio Marine Malaya v. Valdez,
supra.)
Rule on indigent litigants
If the applicant for exemption meets the salary
and property requirements under Sec. 19, Rule
141, then the grant of the application is
mandatory.
However, if the trial court finds that one or
both requirements have not been met, then it
would set a hearing to enable the applicant to
prove that the applicant has “no money or
property sufficient and available for food,
shelter and basic necessities for himself and his
family”, as provided in Sec. 21, Rule 3. In that
hearing, the adverse party may adduce
countervailing evidence to disprove the
evidence presented by the applicant; after
which the trial court will rule on the
application depending on the evidence
adduced.
In addition, Sec. 21, Rule 3 also provides that
the adverse party may later still contest the
grant of such authority at any time before
judgment is rendered by the trial court,
Civil Procedure
49
possibly based on newly discovered evidence
not obtained at the time the application was
heard. (Algura v. LGU of Naga, G.R. No. 150135,
October 30, 2006)
Authority as an indigent party to litigate
includes an exemption from the payment
of:
1. Docket fees and other lawful fees; and
2. Transcript of stenographic notes. (Sec. 21,
Rule 3)
NOTE: The amount of the docket and other
lawful fees which the indigent was exempted
from paying shall be a lien on any judgment
rendered in the case favorable to the indigent,
unless otherwise provided. (Sec. 21, Rule 3)
ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS
Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of
several persons he is entitled to relief, he or
may join any or all of them in the alternative,
although a right to relief against one may be
inconsistent with a right to relief against the
other. (Sec. 13, Rule 3)
COMPULSORY AND PERMISSIVE
JOINDER OF PARTIES
Compulsory joinder of parties (2009 BAR)
The joinder of parties becomes compulsory
when the one involved is an indispensable
party. (Riano, 2014)
The plaintiff is mandated to implead all the
indispensable parties, considering that the
absence of one such party renders all
subsequent action of the court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the
absent parties but even as to those present.
One who is a party to a case is not bound by
any decision of the court; otherwise, he will be
deprived of his right to due process.
(Sepulveda, Sr. v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 152195,
January 31, 2005)
Effect of failure to join an indispensable
party (2015, 2017 BAR)
The presence of indispensable parties is a
condition for the exercise of juridical power
and when an indispensable party is not before
the court, the action should be dismissed.
(Riano, 2014, citing Lucman v. Malawi, G.R. No.
159794, December 19, 2006)
However, an outright dismissal is not the
immediate remedy authorized because, under
the Rules, misjoinder/non-joinder of parties is
NOT a ground for dismissal. It is when the
order of the court to implead an
indispensable party goes unheeded may the
case be dismissed. In such case, the court may
dismiss the complaint due to the fault of the
plaintiff as when he does not comply with any
order of the court (Sec. 3, Rule 17) such as an
order to join indispensable parties. (Riano,
2014, citing Plasabas v. CA, G.R. No. 166519,
March 31, 2009)
Effect of non-joinder of a necessary party
1. The court may order the inclusion of the
omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over
his person may be obtained;
2. The failure to comply with the order for his
inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be
deemed a waiver of the claim against such
party;
3. The non-inclusion of a necessary party does
not prevent the court from proceeding in the
action, and the judgment rendered therein
shall be without prejudice to the rights of
such necessary party. (Sec. 9, Rule 3)
Requisites of permissive joinder of parties
(2002 BAR)
1. Right to relief arises out of the same
transaction or series of transactions
(connected with the same subject matter of
the suit); and
2. There is a question of law or fact common to
all the plaintiffs or defendants.
NOTE: There is a question of law in a given
case when the doubt or difference arises as
to what the law is on a certain state of facts;
there is a question of fact when doubt arises
as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged
facts. (Manila Bay Club Corp. v. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 110015, January 11, 1995)
Rationale of permissive joinder of parties
The purpose and aim of the principle is to have
controversies and the matters directly related