LUCMAN vs.

MALAWI
Date: December 19,
Docket Number: GR 159794 Ponente: Tinga, J.
2006
Topic: RULE 3 Created by: Lance
Petitioners Respondents
ALIMATAR MALAWI, ABDULKHAYER PANGCOGA, SALIMATAR
MACLARING M. LUCMAN SARIP, LOMALA CADAR, ALIRIBA MACARAMBON, ABDUL
USMAN
Facts of the Case
 It should be noted that at the beginning of the 2nd Quarter of 1997, LBP was selected as the government
depository bank for the IRAs in the barangays where MALAWI, et. al, are situated.
 Alimatar Malawi, et. al, are the incumbent barangay chairmen of Pagayawan, Lanao Del Sur.
o They were the incumbent barangay chairmen of their respective barangays prior to the May 12, 1997
barangay elections.
 After the failed May 12, 1997 barangay election, MALAWI, et. al, attempted to open their respective barangays’
IRA bank account but LUCMAN refused because MALAWI, et. al, needed to show their individual certifications
as Barangay Chairmen.
 Thereafter, 5 other persons presented themselves before LUCMAN as the newly proclaimed Barangay
Chairmen, each presented their certification.
 Without verifying their certifications, Lucman proceeded to release the IRA funds fr the 2 nd and 3rd quarters of
1997 to them.
 MALAWI, et.al, filed a petition for mandamus against Lucman before the RTC Lanao Del Sur, claiming that they
were deprived of their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the 2 nd and 3rd quarters of1997
o These funds were released by Lucman (LBP, as the depository bank) to third persons.
 For failure to appear in the 1st and 2nd hearing, RTC rendered a decision commanding Lucman to pay Malawi, et.
al, the IRAs of their respective barangays even without the Accountant’s Advice.
o RTC gave no credence to Lucman’s assertion of payment to the rightful barangay officer after relying
on the pieces of evidence produced by MALAWI, et. al.
 On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.
Issues Ruling
 W/N there are indispensable parties which were not impleaded? YES

Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
 An indispensable party is defined as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an
action.
 HOWEVER, A person is not an indispensable party if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is
separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected
by a decree which does complete justice between them.
 The joinder if indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the
judgment of the court cannot attain real finality. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered
by the court.
 Clearly, this case was not initiated by MALAWI, et.al., and neither did they file the suit in representation of thir
respective barangays. Nothing from the records shows otherwise. On this score alone, the case in the lower
court should have been dismissed.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals and the
Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Mandamus filed before the Regional Trial Court is
ordered DISMISSED.