STARTED EXACTLY AT : 1 : 23 : 56.

43

Section 5 of Rule 3 Complements Sec. 3 of the same rule which allows the filing of a case by the
guardian or against the guardian in legal representation of the person under his care or custody then we
will proceed to discuss Sec. 6 of rule 3 on permissive joinder of parties

SEC 6 OF RULE 3 IN PART AND I quote

Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether
jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs
or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be
just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with
any proceedings in which he may have no interest.

Sec 6. Is commonly referred to as the permissive joinder of parties it is basically related to Sec. 5
Paragraph (a) of Rule 2 the one that we discussed on joinder of causes of action because when there is a
proper joinder of parties there is also a joinder of causes of action although joinder of causes of action
need not involve joinder of parties. The question now is may two or more persons joined together in one
complaint as plaintiffs therein or can two or more persons be joined together as defendants? Well Sec. 6
of Rule 3 Provides us with the answer that it is therefore possible. It is possible for two or more persons to
join together as Plaintiff or for two or more persons to be joint together as Defendants provided the
following conditions be met:
1. There is a right to relief in favor of or against the parties joined in respect to
or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions and for
another it is important
2. There should be a question of fact or law that is common to the parties joined
in the action.

I think you can still recall of the example that I gave you wherein kami ni Randi hired Gravador to bring us
to school on the assumption that Gravador would somehow double as an Angkas driver. So if for example
we met an accident while riding on the motorcycle of Gravador then Randi and I may decide to joint
together as Plaintiffs in the complaint that we intend to file against Gravador. That Is permissible pursuant
to Sec. 6 of Rule 3 After all we have, or there is a common question of fact or law because the incident
happened at one setting whereby Randi and I got injured by reason of the vehicular accident but if the
accident involving Randi, somehow happened in the morning and the accident involving myself happened
in the afternoon then Randi, and I cannot joined together as Co-Plaintiff in one complaint because there is
no common question of fact or law. Ang nahitabo niya sa buntag is different from the incident involving
myself which happened in the afternoon. Because again, when we speak of permissive of joinder of
parties it is required among others that there should be a common question of fact or law.
Then another example where there may be a possible joinder of party is when for example, there are a lot
of passenger in a bus who got injured when the bus figured in an accident then this injured passengers
may join together as complainants or co-plaintiffs in one complaint to be filed against the bus operator or
the bus driver as the case may be. But if it happens that these passengers got injured in separate
occasions as when each one of them rode a different bus or buses belonging to the same bus company
or operator then there is NO WAY that they can be joined together as co-plaintiffs or co-complainants in a
case because again there is that requirement that dismissing that there should be a common question of
fact or law so you take note however that where there is a joinder of parties, such joinder of parties
necessarily carries with it or necessarily includes joinder of causes of action but where there is a joinder
of causes of action it does not necessarily follows that the same also includes joinder of parties so I’ll give
you an example where there is a joinder of causes of action without joinder of parties let’s go back to the
example where in four separate occasions I obtained loan from Waldemar evidenced by four promissory
notes and evidence further by four post-dated checks which I issued in his favor. So if Gravador intends
to file one complaint for non-payment of these four separate loan obligations then we can say that there is
a joinder of causes of action because each promissory note gives rise to a particular cause of action so if
Gravador in one complaint demands the payment of the four unpaid promissory note then we can truly
say that in that situation there is joinder of causes of action but take note that there is no joinder of parties
after all it is only me who is being sued as defendant therein. That is why when we say joinder of parties it
necessarily includes joinder of causes of action but joinder causes of action need not include joinder of
parties and I’d like to emphasize that the rules allow this permissive joinder of parties for convenience that
is for the convenience of the court and also for the convenience of the parties and to avoid multiplicity of
suits or actions that is also to provide for the expeditious termination of proceedings and more than that
that is also for the economy of the procedures that there will be no repetition in the presentation of the
evidence but emphasis should be made of the fact that the joinder in parties here is NOT ACTUALLY
mandatory it is simply permissive meaning it is allowed but not necessarily considered as mandatory or it
is not actually considered as compulsory. So if for example in this situation where Torregosa and I got
injured while riding together on the motorcycle of Gravador you take note that Randi actually may bring an
action separate from the one that I may be filing against Gravador or that Randi and I are not actually
compelled under the rules to join together in one complaint as co-plaintiffs therein. Randi has the option in
filing his case on his own, and I also have the option of bringing an action all by myself after all the joinder
of parties here under Sec. 6 of Rule 3 is merely permissive and is not considered as mandatory or
compulsory. Then we will now proceed to discuss Sec. 7 of Rule 3 which talks about compulsory joinder
of indispensable parties. Again, the joinder of parties under Sec. 6 is not compulsory and that it is merely
permissive but a joinder of parties under Sec. 7 of Rule 3 is considered to be COMPULSORY but the
parties here that should be joined together are considered as indispensable parties Sec. 7 of Rule 3
provides and I quote:

“Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. — Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants.”

So again, emphasis should be made for the fact that here or with respect to indispensable parties their
joinder in one complaint is considered as COMPULSORY and is not merely regarded as permissive.
Okay, so again you may recall under Sec. 4 of Rule 3 it is required that the husband and the wife must
sue or be sued jointly so where in situations where the husband and wife are mandated to sue or be sued
jointly but only one of them brings the action then the case therefore is vulnerable to dismissal because it
does not comply with the requirement under Sec. 7 on compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. But
jurisprudence has it that in situation where the husband and wife are required to join together as plaintiffs
or defendants of the action the court will first allow the amendment of the pleading but if the order for the
amendment of the pleading to join together the husband and wife as plaintiff or defendant as the case
may be is not obeyed that is the time that the case will be ordered dismissed so again emphasis should
be made that where parties are considered to be indispensable parties then it is a must and it is required
that they should be joined together as plaintiffs or defendants in the action. But the question is when can
we consider a person or a party as an indispensable party?

In the case of Benedicto Munoz v Olivarez gives us the answer. The case is docketed as GR 179121
Nov. 9 2015 where our supreme court succinctly held that an indispensable party as one whose interest
in the subject matter of the suit and the relief sought are inextricably intertwined with the other parties that
his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is absolutely necessary. On the contrary, a party is not
indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the
interest of the other parties and will not necessarily prejudice by a judgement which does rather complete
justice to the parties in court. So other examples where parties may be considered as indispensable
parties is an action for partition of land so in such action for partition of land all the co-owners thereof are
considered as indispensable parties likewise in an action for annulment of partition then all the heirs of the
deceased must be joined together as parties therein or in an action for recovery of ownership of land the
person who claims to be the owner of the land is regarded to be an indispensable party-defendant and
not the one in possession as the tenant but I’d like to emphasize that in an action for forcible entry and
unlawful detainer it is not required that all co-owner must be joined together as co-plaintiffs or co-
defendants because there is a provision under Art. 487 under the rules of court which allows a co-owner
to bring an action for ejectment for the benefit of the other co-owner so that maybe taken as an exception
to the rule under Sec. 7 of Rule 3 to the end that the joinder of indispensable parties is considered to be
compulsory and not necessarily mandatory and take note again that the joinder of indispensable parties is
considered mandatory because without the presence of all the indispensable parties then the court
cannot therefore proceed because the joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory and court cannot
proceed without their presence and take note also that any decision rendered by a court without first
obtaining the required jurisdiction over indispensable parties is null and void for want of jurisdiction not
only as to the absent to the party but even as to those present. So if in a case it appears to the court in
the course of the proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined therein it becomes a duty of
the court to stop the trial and order the inclusion of such party because the absence of such indispensable
party renders all the subsequent actuations of the court as null and void. The court therefore will not have
any authority to procced with the case unless the omitted indispensable party is joined in the action. So
there is want of authority not only with respect to the absent party but even as to those who are already
impleaded in the action. And even where there is a motion to dismiss that is filed on the ground that the
complaint states no cause of action because there is an omitted indispensable party or indispensable
parties as a rule, the court will not proceed to dismiss the case at once. The rule is that if the court
observes that there is an omitted indispensable party or even where the other party already files a motion
to dismiss on the ground that the complaints states no cause of action for the reason that there is an
omitted indispensable party, the court will not forthwith dismiss the case or that the court will not
immediately dismiss the case in that the court at first will just direct the party to amend the necessary
pleading so as to include the omitted party. And the order of the court directing the inclusion of the
omitted indispensable party is consistent with Sec. 11 Rule 3 of Rules of Court which provides:

Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. — Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is
ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any
party or on its own initiative at any stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a
misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.

So in other words, in an action there is an omitted indispensable party, the court at first, will give the party
a chance to amend the complaint so as to include the excluded or omitted party but where the order of
the court is not obeyed, or the order of court to include an omitted indispensable party is not followed then
and in that situation the case may already be dismissed by the court pursuant Sec. 3 Rule 17 of the Rules
of Court which allows the dismissal of the case for failure to obey a lawful order of the court. Again,
joinder of indispensable party is required because when there is no joinder of indispensable parties, then
the case is vulnerable to dismissal because the court does not have the legal authority to proceed with
the case but even if there is an omitted indispensable party and even when there is already a motion to
dismiss that is part on that ground, the court will still afford the party concern to amend the pleading so as
to include the omitted party. But if the order of the inclusion of the omitted party is not followed, then that’s
the time when the court may now dismiss the case base on Sec. 3 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court and
emphasis to be made to the fact that again while Sec. 6 merely allows or permits the joinder of parties but
Sec. 7 requires or considers it mandatory for the joinder of parties where such parties are considered to
be indispensable parties. But what if for example you are a passenger of a bus and then the bus figured
in an accident and you filed a case for culpa aquillana against the bus driver and bus operator you take
note that the one that you’re filing the action that you re filing is not one for culpa contractual but for culpa
aquillana and then somehow for some reason or another the driver or the bus driver cannot be served
with summon. The question now is could the court proceed to hear that case with respect only to the bus
operator and could the court validly render judgement thereon even if the driver has not been brought in
as party because of the failure to serve summons on him? Is the decision of the court valid? Well this is
actually the scenario or the situation in the case of Herman Cerezo v. David Tuazon G.R 141538 March
23 2004 where a tricycle collided with a bus the tricycle driver filed a case for damages based on quasi-
delict against the owner of the bus and the driver and the driver was not served with summon and it is on
this basis that the bus owner question the validity of the court’s decision because the court’s decision is
adverse to the bus owner of course the driver could not be adjudged liable as he was not properly served
with summons so according to the bus owner the driver is an indispensable party in the case but in that
case our supreme court ruled in essence “contrary to the assertion of the bus owner, the bus driver is not
actually an indispensable party to the case according to the supreme court an indispensable party is one
whose interest is affected to the court’s action in the litigation and without whom no final resolution of the
case is possible. However, the bus owner’s liability as an employer in an action for quasi-delict is not only
solidary in that according to the supreme court, it is primary and direct. So in that case of cerezo our
supreme court declared that the bus driver is not an indispensable party to the final resolution of the
action for damages filed against the bus owner because the responsibility of two or more persons who are
liable for a quasi-delict is solidary and when there is a solidary obligation in the part of the debtor as in the
case, said the supreme court each debtor is liable for the entire obligation hence, each debtor is liable to
pay for the entire obligation in full. So you remember this case of Cerezo where in an action for quasi-
delict and not culpa contractual the driver is not considered as an indispensable party in fact you can also
file a case a culpa acquillana against the driver only without the need of impleading the bus operator
because an action for culpa acquillana in an action for culpa acquillana the bus driver and bus operator
are merely considered as indispensable party with respect to a case filed against anyone of them. So we
will now proceed to discus Sec.8 of Rule 3 dealing with necessary party

Section 8. Necessary party. — A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be
joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.

Emphasis should be made that the parties referred to under Sec. 8 are merely considered as necessary
parties whereas the parties referred to under Sec. 7 are indispensable parties such that the joinder of
parties under Sec. 7 are said to be mandatory whereas the joinder of parties said to be necessary parties
under Sec. 8 is not actually considered as mandatory but is considered as desirable. And that is to enable
a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject matter of the action. So again, in Sec. 7 the
joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory but under Sec. 8 the joinder of necessary parties is desired
but is not actually considered as mandatory and a necessary party, again, under Sec. 8 is one who is not
indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded in an action.