SPC Fornel,Ma. Theresa A.

Subject: Civil Procedure 1

Professor: Judge Janice L. Andrade-Udarbe

Civil Service Commission v. Rasuman

G.R. No. 239011, June 17, 2019
Rule 7 Section 3 of the Rules of Court: Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be
had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants.

FACTS

The case involves a petition for the correction of a government employee's date of
birth. The respondent, Pacol Disumimba Rasuman, filed a verified petition before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur to correct his date of birth from February 12,
1952 to February 12, 1956. The RTC granted the petition, and the decision became final and
executory. Then, Rasuman filed a request with the Civil Service Commission-National
Capital Region (CSC-NCR) to correct his date of birth in his service records.The CSC-NCR
denied the request, stating that it was not bound by the RTC decision since it was not
impleaded in the petition.
The CSC-NCR argued that it is an indispensable party to the petition for correction of
Rasuman's date of birth and should have been impleaded in the proceedings. Dismissal of
Petition for Review by CSC Proper. Rasuman filed a petition for review with the CSC Proper,
but it was dismissed. The CSC held that it is not bound by the RTC decision since it was not
impleaded in the petition. Rasuman filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals
(CA), which granted the petition and directed the CSC to comply with the RTC decision. The
CA ruled that the petition for correction of entry is an action in rem, and the decision therein
binds not only the parties but the whole world. CSC's Motion for Reconsideration and
Petition for Review on Certiorari

ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in the decision that the petition for correction is an action in
rem?

RULING:
Yes. The CA erred in the decision that the petition for correction is an action in rem.
The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC was an indispensable party and should have been
impleaded to protect its interest. The CSC's denial of Rasuman's request for correction was
valid because it was not bound by the RTC decision.
The Court emphasized that the CSC should have been afforded due process before its
interest could be affected by the decision granting the correction of Rasuman's date of birth.
The Court rejected the CA's argument that the failure to implead the CSC could be cured by
publication of the notice of hearing. The Court found that Rasuman did not exert earnest
efforts to bring the CSC to court, and there was no showing that the CSC was inadvertently
left out.
 Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without whom no
final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." If
there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no
effectiveness. It is "precisely 'when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an
action should be dismissed.' The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties
but even to those present." The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a
complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as
regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face
cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable parties.
The Supreme Court held that the CSC should have been afforded due process before
its interest could be affected, regardless of whether the proceeding was classified as in rem or
in personam. The CSC's interest would be affected by the correction of Rasuman's date of
birth, as it would have implications on his employment and service records. The CSC's denial
of Rasuman's request for correction was based on the inconsistency between his Certificate of
Live Birth and his employment and school records.
Thus, the petition is granted. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and
reinstated the CSC's denial of Rasuman's request for correction, emphasizing the importance
of impleading the CSC as an indispensable party in the petition for correction.

DOCTRINE:
In petitions for correction of entries in the civil registry, all persons who have claim
that any interest that would be affected by the correction should be made parties to the
proceeding. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) is an indispensable party when the
correction of entries would affect a government employee’s service records. Failure to
implead the CSC and provide it with notice violates due process.
The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null
and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those
present. The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete
determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other
persons who may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real
finality where there is want of indispensable parties.