SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and PEDRO BALUBAL, Respondents

G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS:

Superlines Transportation Company (Superlines) is engaged in the business of

providing public transportation. On 13 December 1990, one of its buses swerved
and crashed into the radio room of respondent Philippine National Construction
Company (PNCC).

The incident was initially investigated by PNCC’s toll way patrol, Sofronio Salvanera,
and Pedro Balubal, then head of traffic control and security department of the South
Luzon tollway. The bus was then towed by the PNCC patrol upon request of traffic
investigator Cesar Lopera.

Superlines made several requests for PNCC to release the bus, but Balubal denied
the same, despite Superlines’ undertaking to repair the damaged radio room.
Superlines thus filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages
against PNCC and Balubal. The claim for damages, however, failed to implead
Lopera and any other police officer responsible for the seizure and distraint of the
bus as indispensable parties.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Superlines’ claim for damages against can be passed upon.

Whether or not Superlines’ failure to implead indispensable parties is fatal to its

cause of action.

RULING:

Anent the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The reason is that a
contract of deposit was perfected between the police authorities, through Lopera,
and PNCC, the former having turned over the bus to PNCC for safekeeping. Hence,
for Superlines to pursue its claim for damages, it or the trial court motu proprio
must implead as defendants the indispensable parties.

With respect to the second issue, the Court ruled, again, in the negative.
Accordingly, the failure of Superlines to implead indispensable parties is not fatal to
its cause of action, since misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is not a ground for its
dismissal. In other words, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground
for the dismissal of an action. According to Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner
refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter
may dismiss the petition for its failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to implead
the non-party claimed to be indispensable.