rule 03-parties to civil actions

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure2001 Edition

Rule 03Parties to Civil Actions

Rule 03PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

CLASSES OF PARTIES:

I. Real Parties in InterestII. Representative PartiesIII. Permissive PartiesIV. Indispensable PartiesV. Necessary PartiesSec. 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or

juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or other third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant. (1a)

Q: Who may be parties to a civil case?A: Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be

parties in a civil action . So, you cannot sue or be sued unless you are a person. A dead man cannot sue and he cannot be sued because he has no more personality.

That is why in one case, Brod Pito sued the firm name, “Paningkamot Store.” So, it is “Brod Pito vs. Paningkamot Store.” The SC said, that is wrong. Paningkamot Store is not a person. PangaIan ng tindahan iyan. The correct procedure is you sue the owner because he is the real person. But the defect is not really substantial. It is only a formal defect that can easily be corrected.

“ENTITIES AUTHORIZED BY LAW”

Q: Give an example of an entity authorized by law which can be sued although it is not a person.

A: The best example is Section 15 of this rule.Section 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.- When two or

more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into u transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known.

In the answer of such defendant the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed.

Another example of an entity authorized by law which may not be a natural or juridical person is a labor union under the Labor Code. It is an entity authorized by law to file a case in behalf of the of its members. Although it may not have been incorporated under the Corporation Law but registered under the Labor Code.

Q: Who are the plaintiffs, defendants?A: The term PLAINTIFF may refer to the claiming party, the original plaintiff, the

counter - claimant, the cross -claimant, the third (fourth, etc.)- party plaintiff . So, the word ‘plaintiff’ covers them.

The term DEFENDANT may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or other third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant. These are explained in Rule 6, Sections 6, 8 & 11.

I. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST

Sec 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 74



Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (2a)

Q: Who is a real party in interest?A: A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by

the judgment in the suit . (Section 2)

That is a new sentence taken form jurisprudence because the prior rule never gave a definition of real parties in interest but jurisprudence gives a definition. That definition is taken from the leading case of SALONGA VS. WARNER BARNES & CO. (88 Phil. 125). That is exactly how it is defined and that definition has been repeated through the years.

every action must be prosecuted or defendedin the name of the real party in interest

So a complaint is dismissible if it is not made in the name of the real party in interest.

In an action to recover a piece of land , you do not file a case against tenant. He is not the real party in interest. You must file the case against the owner of the land.

When you are riding in a bus which collided and you were injured, do not file a case against the driver for damages. Your contract in not with the drive. Your contract is with the operator. So you file a case of culpa contractual against the owner or operator.

GENERAL RULE: In a breach of contract, the real parties in interest are the parties to the contract. So strangers, as a rule, have no business suing in a contract because they are not real parties in interest.

EXCEPTION: When there is a stipulation in the contract favorable to a third person (stipulation pour autrui – Art. 1311, NCC) Example: Third-Party Liability (TPL) in insurance. A insured his car with B for TPL. A bumped C. C can file a case against A and B to recover from the insurance contract.

BALIWAG TRANSIT vs. COURT OF APPEALS 169 SCRA 649 [1989 BAR]

FACTS: A student who was riding in one of the Baliwag buses met an accident. So, an action was filed where the parents and the injured boy were the co-plaintiffs against Baliwag Transit. While the case was going on, the boy entered into amicable settlement with the bus company. Based on the settlement, Baliwag moved to dismiss the case. The parents objected, “We are objecting because we are also plaintiffs. We didn’t know about the settlement. We were the ones who spent money, therefore it should not be dismissed simply because our son is withdrawing the case.”

HELD: The parents are not the real party in interest. The were not the passengers. The real parties in a contract of carriage are the parties to the contract itself. “In the absence of any contract of carriage between the transportation company and the parents of the injured party, the parents are not real parties in interest in an action for breach of contract.”

SALONGA vs. WARNER BARNES88 Phil. 125 [Bar Problem]

FACTS: Aiza Guadolope decided to go abroad but she has properties in the Philippines. So she executed a special power of attorney in favor of Ken A. Sabayah: “You have the full power to administer, to collect all my money; to withdraw my money in the bank; with full power to sue these people who owe




me; with the authority to hire a lawyer; and enter into a contract. Practically, you are my alter ego.” And then Aiza went abroad.

Ken started to manage the property. One of the tenants failed to pay rentals. So in accordance with the authority, he hired a lawyer. In preparation of the complaint, it was stated that, “ Ken, plaintiff vs. Lewee Yoda, defendant.”

ISSUE: Is the action properly filed?

HELD: NO. The real property in interest is the principal, the owner of the property. Ken is only an attorney-in-fact. An attorney-in-fact cannot use in his own name because he is not the real party in interest. Ken is given the authority to sue, to manage, hire a lawyer but not as the plaintiff because the real party in interest is Aiza. The complaint should be name as “Aiza, plaintiff vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant.” Yaan!

Q: Suppose Ken, the lawyer will amend the complaint: “Ken, as attorney-in-fact of Aiza, plaintiff vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant” is the complaint properly filed.

A: NO. This is even worse because Ken is admitting that he is only an attorney-in-fact. The more reason na nahalata ka that he is not the real party in interest. If Ken wants to include the his name, it should be: “Aiza, plaintiff, represented by Ken, his attorney-in-fact vs. Leewee Yoda, defendant.”

Q: Does the law require Aiza to come here to file the case?A: NO. Take note that the law does not require the principal (A) to come back to file the

case because, the law does not say “every action must be prosecuted and defendant BY the real party in interest.” Hindi naman sinabing “by” eh. So an attorney-in-fact can prosecute or defend a party but in the name of the real party in interest. The real party in interest has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by filing the complaint through his lawyer.

II. REPRESENTATIVE PARTY

Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. - Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. (3a)

Section 3 is a relaxation of Section 2 because under Section 2, you cannot sue and be sued if you are not the real party in interest. But Section 3 allows one who is not a real party in interest to sue and be sued in behalf of somebody else. It is possible if you can qualify as a representative party.

Example: GUARDIAN. Suppose Judee, a minor was injured. A case for damages has to be filed in behalf of the minor. A minor cannot sue and be sued but she is the real party in interest. The law allows the parents to come in and also be the plaintiff. The parents are what we the representative party. The law still requires for the minor to be included in the case. The law states that “the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party in interest.”

Example: TRUSTEE; EXECUTOR; ADMINISTRATOR. Another example is a trustee of an express trust, or executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person. When a person dies, what survives after him is his estate which represents everything that is left behind. This later on will be given to his heirs. But for the meantime under the law on succession, the executor or administrator will take charge of his property.

Q: If the estate of the deceased has some collectibles, who will file the case?




A: The administrator or executor as the representative party. If you want to sue the estate, you should sue the estate through the administrator or executor.

CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS181 SCRA 9

FACTS: Angel Maya wanted to sue Devil John who owe her a sum of money. The problem is, she cannot locate John’s whereabouts. Also, Maya was not certain whether John is dead or alive. So, to play it safe, what the Maya did was to file a case against the “defendant and/or the estate of defendant.” Maya obtained a judgment against the ‘defendant and/or the estate of defendant.’

Later on when the judgment was enforced, it turned out that the John was already dead (tsk! tsk!) but he has properties left behind. So, they started to take hold of their properties. Now, the heirs of the John challenged the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid judgment against the ‘defendant/or the estate of the defendant.”

HELD: The decision is void. “The decision of the lower court insofar as the deceased is concerned, is void for lack of jurisdiction over his person. He was not, and he could not have been validly served with summons. He had no more civil personality. His juridical personality, that is fitness to be subject of legal relations, was lost through death (Arts. 37 and 42 Civil Code).”

“The same conclusion would still inevitably be reached notwithstanding joinder of B’s estate as co-defendant. It is a well-settled rule that an estate can sue or be sued through an executor or administrator in his representative capacity.”

So, the Court cited Section 3. In order to bind the estate, you should sue the executor or the administrator of his estate. So, either way, the case cannot prosper.

The last sentence of Section 3:An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed

principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.

The agent cannot sue because the principal is the real party in interest. But when an agent acts in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal, he may sue and be sued, EXCEPT when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. Under the exception, the principal has really to be included. The agent cannot file a case where the principal will lose his property without being named as part to the case.

Sec 4. Spouses as parties. - Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly, except as provided by law. (4a)

Normally, the husband and the wife should sue and be sued together. Even if the wife borrowed money alone and you want to sue the woman, still the husband should be included. Why? In the property relationship between the husband and wife, they are governed by absolute community or conjugal partnership. Whether you like it or not, the implication of the wife is also the implication of the husband because of the property relationship.

In the same manner, if the wife wants to collect, even if the husband does not know anything about it, the husband should still be named as party plaintiff, on the ground again that in the income that she can get redounds to the benefit of the conjugal partnership.

And there were decided cases in the part where even if for example, a wife sues without the husband , the defect is not fatal but merely formal . The complaint




should not be dismissed. All that is to be done is to amend the complaint impleading the husband. (Cuyugan vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 80)

Q: Give an exception to that general rule that husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly.

A: The EXCEPTION is in case of Complete Separation of Property (Article 145, Family Code), and under Article 111, Family Code:

Art. 111. A spouse of age may mortgage, alienate, encumber or otherwise dispose of his or her exclusive property without the consent of the other spouse and appear alone in court to litigate with regard to the same. (Family Code)

Sec 5. Minor or incompetent persons. - A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. (5a)

Section 5 is related to Section 3. The minor or incompetent person must be assisted by the parents and considered as representative party. Incompetent persons includes insane people or mentally retarded people. They are supposed to be under the custody of other persons, the guardians. If no guardian, the court has to appoint a guardian called the guardian ad litem.

III. PERMISSIVE PARTY

Sec 6. Permissive joinder of parties. - All persons in whom or against 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. (6)

Section 6 is known as permissive joinder of parties. This is related to Section 5 [a] of Rule 2 on joinder of causes of action because when there is proper joinder of parties, necessarily there is also automatic joinder of causes of action. But there could be joinder of causes of action without joinder of parties.

Q: May two or more persons join in one complaint as plaintiffs? Or can two or more persons be joined together as defendants?

A: YES, under two conditions, to wit:

1.) There is a right to relief in favor of or against or against the parties joined in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions; and

2.) There is a question of law or fact common to the parties joined in the action.

PROBLEM: Suppose some passengers riding a particular common carrier are injured because of an accident. All of them want to sue the operator of the carrier for damages arising out of the breach of contract of carriage. Under the Law on Transportation, it possible for each passenger to file his own case because our causes of action are different from each other. But can they be joined together in one complaint against the common carrier?

A: YES because there is a common question of law or fact in the causes of actions of the injured passengers: the evidence is identical; the issues whether the carrier is at fault are the came; the witnesses for both parties will be the same; the report will be the same; the defense of the operator against one party will be the same defense as against the




other passenger. So, since there is a common denominator on their causes of action, they can be joined.

It would be different if the passengers were riding on different buses belonging to the same company, and all of them met an accident. What happened to Passenger No. 1 does not concern Passenger No. 2. The evidence will not be the same. So, there is no common denominator – no common question of fact. Therefore, they cannot be joined.

PROBLEM: Suppose a story appeared in the Inquirer where 5 people were called as jueteng kings. They were allegedly involved in jueteng – these are the jueteng kings: Ken, Kenneth, Francis, Thad and Sheriff. Now, the five of them want to sue the Inquirer for damages arising from libel. Is it possible for the five (5) people named in the article to file only one complaint against the editor and publisher of the Inquirer?

A: YES because it is of the same story. Their names appeared in the same story. It is not a different issue. So there is a common question of act law in their cause of action.

PROBLEM: Myra, while driving a car, bumped another vehicle, injuring the driver and causing injury to other passengers. So, there are three offended parties : the owner of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle , and the passenger. There are three(3) causes of action. Can they join in one complaint against Myra, the owner of the car which bumped them?

A: YES because there is a common question of fact and law. There is only one accident.

Q: But suppose the three of them will file 3 separate cases against Myra, puwede?A: Puwede, because permissive joinder of parties is not mandatory. Kaya nga

‘permissive’ eh! It is not mandatory but optional although the law encourages permissive joinder of parities.

Q: Why does the law encourage joinder of parties?A: The following are the reasons:

1.) to promote convenience in trial;2.) to prevent multiplicity of suits;3.) to expedite the termination of the litigation; and4.) to attain economy of procedure under which several demands arising out of the

same occurrence may be tried together thus avoiding the repetition of evidence relating to facts common to the general demands.

Now, take note that when there is joinder of parties, there is “automatically” a joinder of causes of action. That is why one of the conditions of limitations in joinder of causes of action is you must observe the rule on joinder of parties. If joinder of parties is improper under Rule 3, the joinder of causes of action is also improper under Rule 2, Section 5

Principle: WHEN THERE IS JOINDER OF PARTIES (it presupposes that there are two or more parties to one action) , THERE IS ALSO A JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION. BUT THERE CAN BE A JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION WITHOUT A JOINDER OF PARTIES.

Paano yun?

EXAMPLE: When there is only “one plaintiff and one defendant” : Suppose Melissa will secure three (3) loans from me.

Q: How many causes of action do I have if Melissa will not pay me?A: Three (3) man ba!

Q: Now, can I join them in one complaint?A: Yes.

Q: Is there joinder of causes of action?A: Yes.




Q: Is there joinder of parties?A: NONE, because there is only one plaintiff and one defendant.

So, there can be joinder of causes of action without joinder of parties because there is only one plaintiff and one defendant. But if you join parties in Rule 3, automatically, there is joinder of causes of action. This is the relationship of these two provisions.

Finally, the last two types of parties to the action are the so-called indispensable parties and necessary parties. (Section 7 and Section 8, respectively)

INDISPENSABLE PARTY and NECESSARY PARTIES

Sec. 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. (7)

Sec. 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. (8a)

Take note that under the Old Rules, Section 8, the party there was called ‘proper party.’ Now they change the word from ‘proper party’ to ‘necessary party.’ This readopts the old name under the 1940 Rules. Under the old rules, the parties were either indispensable or necessary. Then under the 1964 Rule, it was changed from ‘necessary’ to ‘proper.’ Now, under the new rule, back to its old name: ‘necessary party.’

Q: Distinguish indispensable from necessary party.A: An INDISPENSABLE PARTY must be joined under any and all conditions, his

presence being a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power, for without him, no final determination can be had of the action. (Borlasa vs. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345)

A NECESSARY PARTY ought to be joined whenever possible in order to adjudicate the whole controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits, but if for some reason or another he cannot be joined, the court may proceed without him and the judgment shall not prejudice his rights. (Ibid.)

Q: Give examples of indispensable party.A: In an action for partition of land, all the co-owners thereof are indispensable parties.

(De Lara vs. De Lara, 2 Phil. 294) In an action for annulment of partition, all of the heirs must be made parties. (Caram vs. CA, 101 Phil. 315) In an action for recovery of ownership of land, the person who claims to be the owner of the land is the indispensable party defendant and not the one in possession as tenant. (Sanidad vs. Cabotaje, 5 Phil. 204; Manza vs. Santiago, 96 Phil. 938)

Q: Give examples of necessary party.A: In an action for collection of debt instituted by the creditor against the surety, the

principal debtor is merely a necessary party. (Vaño vs. Alo, 95 Phil. 495) In an action for recovery of debt instituted by the creditor against the debtor, the guarantor or surety is merely a necessary party. (Ibid.) In an action for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage instituted by the first mortgagee, the second mortgagee is merely a necessary party. (Somes vs. Gov’t of Phil., 62 Phil. 432)

REVIEW: What is the difference between a surety and a guarantor? The liability of guarantor to the creditor is only secondary. Meaning, the guarantor is only liable to the creditor if the principal debtor cannot pay like when the debtor is insolvent. On the other hand, a surety is principally liable to the creditor whether or not the debtor can pay.

PROBLEM: In credit transactions, there is a creditor, debtor and surety. Debtor borrowed money from the creditor, then another acted as the surety. Now, suppose the debtor will not pay, the creditor files now a case against the surety without the debtor. The debtor was not included in the case.




Q: Can the case proceed even without the debtor being sued? A: YES, the case may proceed.

Now, the surety may be ordered to pay. Pero bag binayaran ng surety iyong creditor, what will he do next? He will now sue the principal debtor for reimbursement. Meaning, there is still a future case. Thus, there could be no complete relief between those who are parties. So, the debtor is a necessary party, and not indispensable. But it is advisable to join the debtor in one case, para pag nag-claim ang creditor from the surety, the latter can automatically claim from the debtor. Pang-one time ba!

PROBLEM: Kuya Mortz borrowed money from Doña Eugenia a.k.a. Genie. Ate Maya is the guarantor. The Doña Genie filed a case against Kuya Mortz. She did not include the guarantor.

Q: Can the case proceed even without the guarantor?Q: YES because the guarantor is merely a necessary party. And if the debtor turns out

to be insolvent, the creditor will now file another case against the guarantor.

REVIEW: What is the difference between joint debtors and solidary debtors? In solidary, the creditor can collect the whole obligation from any of the debtors without prejudice to the right of the latter for reimbursement of his share in the obligation from his co-debtors. On the other hand, in joint obligation, the creditor can only get from a debtor the latter’s share in the whole obligation. Meaning, the creditor cannot compel the debtor to pay the share of his co-debtor. Kanya-kanya tayo.

PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are JOINT debtors of P100,000 (50-50 sharing). Doña Eugenia is the creditor. Both did not pay Doña Eugenia.

Q: If Doña Eugenia files a case against Manuel only, can the case proceed without Cathy?

A: YES but Doña Eugenia can only collect from Manuel up to P50,000 only because of their joint obligation. Cathy is only necessary insofar as Manuel’s share is concern. But Manuel is indispensable party insofar as his share is concern.

Q: But if Doña Eugenia wants to collect the entire P100,000, what should she do? A: She should file a case against both Manuel and Cathy.

PROBLEM: Manuel and Cathy are SOLIDARY debtors of P100,000 (50-50 sharing). Doña Eugenia is the creditor. Both did not pay Doña Eugenia.

Q: If Doña Eugenia files a case against Manuel only, can the case proceed without Cathy?

A: YES and Manuel is required to pay Doña Eugenia the whole amount of the debt because of solidary obligation. Then Manuel can proceed against Cathy for reimbursement. Be is merely necessary party.

Sec. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded. Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.

The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.

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. (8a, 9a)

If you do not implead a necessary party, you must give an explanation why you did not implead him. The law requires as much as possible that all parties be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of suits. EXAMPLE: Tato “The Hunk” files a case against Andre “The Hippie”, a surety, without including Sheriff “The Punk” as the debtor. In the complaint of Tato, he shall explain why he is not including Sheriff.




Assuming that a necessary party cannot be impleaded, his non - inclusion does not prevent the court from proceeding with the action. The judgment rendered shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party.

However, if the court finds no valid reason for not impleading a party, the court may order the inclusion of the necessary party under Section 9. And take note that under the new rules, the failure to comply with the order of inclusion without justifiable cause shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such (necessary) party.

EXAMPLE: If Tato, without justifiable cause, refuses to include Sheriff despite the order of the court, and later on, Andre cannot also pay Tato, there is no way now for Tato to go against Sheriff anymore because he (Tato) failed to comply with the order of inclusion without justifiable cause.

Sec. 10. Unwilling co-plaintiff. If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. (10)

This is particularly true with INDISPENSABLE parties – the case cannot proceed without you.

EXAMPLE : There are 4 brothers and 1 sister. They have to file a case against somebody to recover property which they believe was owned by their parents. Then, brother 4 say to sister 1, “Let us file a case.” But sabi ni sister 1, “Pilitin mo muna ako.” Then she says, “Ayoko nga, hindi mo ako pinilit eh!” Meaning, all of them will suffer because ayaw ni sister 1 mag-file ng kaso.

Q: Now, what is the remedy of the 4 brothers?A: Under Section 10, include the one who refused as one of the defendants. If there is

unwilling plaintiff, name him as defendant whether he likes it or not.

MISJOINDER AND NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES

Sec. 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 of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately. (11a)

This is similar to Section 6 of Rule 2 – misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. Misjoinder or non - joinder at parties is not a ground for a motion to dismiss because at any stage of the case, the court can order a misjoined party to be removed or a party not joined to be included.

Q: Do you know what ‘MISJOINDER of parties’ mean?A: It means that two or more parties should not be joined but they are improperly

joined. A good example is, if there is no common question of fact or law. Meaning, you do not have any business to be here but you are joined or misjoined. That is what we call misjoinder of parties. It is also known as “spurious class suit.”

Well, ‘NON-JOINDER’ is different. A party who should be joined was not joined such as a necessary party.

Q: What happens if a party is misjoined or if there is a non-joinder, should the case be dismissed?

A: Not, that is not a ground for dismissal. Q: So what is the remedy then?A: The remedy is to order the removal of the party who is misjoined, or to order the

inclusion of the party who should be joined. And that is not a defect which should cause




the dismissal of the case because the can always issue an order ordering the removal of a misjoined party or the inclusion of joinder of a party who should be included.

Q: Does it mean to say therefore, that the plaintiff has the license to include anybody in an action? Like for example, I have a case against somebody in the class, the trouble is in the meantime, I cannot identify who among you who did the wrong to me. So I will file a case against all of you. Anyway later on, I can dump you kung hindi ka talaga sabit. Now, is this allowed?

A: NO. That is not a license. What the law contemplates, according to the SC, the party was joined in good faith believing that he was a defendant but actually it turned out to be wrong. So, you have no right to sue anybody just like that. That is not an excuse for suing any party left and right. In the case of

REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN173 SCRA 72 [1989]

HELD: Section 11 of Rule 3 “does not comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is erroneous or mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. No one is free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to drop him unceremoniously later at the pleasure of the plaintiff. The rule presupposes that the original inclusion had been made in the honest conviction that it was proper and the subsequent dropping is requested because it turned out that such inclusion was a mistake.”

CLASS SUITSEC. 12. Class suit. When the subject matter of the controversy is one of

common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)

As a GENERAL RULE, if there are several real parties in interest, they shall be included in the case whether indispensable or necessary. Example: There are 30 of us. The general rule is that all parties in interest, indispensable or necessary shall be included.

EXCEPTION to the General Rule: Class Suit . Meaning, some of you will sue to represent the rest. That is also known as the “doctrine of virtual representation.” The concept of a class suit was first enunciated in the old case of

BORLAZA vs. POLISTICO47 Phil. 345

FACTS: This case has something to do with raffle. A group of people decided to form an association which they called “Turnuhang Polistico.” You become a member of this association by contributing a certain sum of money. And then every Sunday after mass, half of the collection will go to the treasurer of the association. The other half will be raffled off. This has been going on for months and years. The time came when the funds of the association became very big. Some of the members, in behalf of all the members, decided to file a case against the officers to render an accounting of all the amounts. The real parties in interest would be the members.

ISSUE: Is the suit filed by some members in behalf of some members proper?

HELD: YES, because if We will require all the members to appear, it will be quite impossible. Therefore, some members must be made to sue but only in behalf of all the members who are not around and it is impracticable to bring them all to the court. A number of them may sue for the benefit of all.

Q: What are the CONDITIONS FOR A VALID CLASS SUIT?




A: Under Section 12, the following are the conditions of a valid class suit:

1. The subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons (such as the funds of the association in the case of POLISTICO); and

2. The parties are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.

In which case a number of them which the court finds to be sufficient and numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Example is a taxpayer’s suit – filed in behalf of all the taxpayers in the Philippines. And there is no specific number of persons that is provided by law.

Now, we will go to some interesting cases on class suit decided by the Supreme Court:

SULO NG BAYAN vs. ARANETA, INC.72 SCRA 347 [1976]

FACTS: This concerns the big property of the Araneta’s in Quezon City. It has been the subject matter o f litigation for the past years – 3 or 4 decades. It is a big track of land in Quezon City occupied by so many people who want to acquire it. They are questioning the title of the Araneta’s

So, Sulo (torch) ng Bayan is the association of squatters. Since the properties of the Araneta is very big, they subdivided it – kanya-kanyang lote. Then a case was filed by Sulo ng bayan Association against Araneta to annul the title of the latter.

ISSUE #1: Whether or not the action was file in the name of the real in interest.

HELD: Sulo ng Bayan is not the real party in interest. It violates Section 2 – “the action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real parties in interest.” The members occupying the land are the plaintiffs. The association is not the one occupying the lot. So, the first question is, who should be the plaintiff? It should be the members.

ISSUE #2: Whether or not the action was properly pleaded as a class suitHELD: NO. This is the more important reason why they cannot qualify as a

class suit: In a class suit, the subject matter is of common interest to all. Meaning, lahat tayo is interesado. To illustrate:

You are Occupant No. 1, which lot do you occupy? “Here (a particular lot).” Meron ka bang interest diyan? “Meron.” Do you have an interest in that (another lot) portion? “Wala.” If that is so, then the subject matte is not of common interest. The interest of one occupant is only on the lot he occupies. Meaning, “My neighbor does not have an interest on the lot I occupied.”

What should be done is that all of them to sue together to cover the entire property, for each one has a lot. So, in that case, Section 6 should be applied – permissive joinder of parties because there is a common question of fact. This is more of permissive joinder of Parties rather than a class suit. That’s why you can confuse Section 6 with Section 12. But the permissive joinder of parties kailangan, lahat kayoi nandiyan. Hindi puwede na I will represent you. Kanya-kanya yan but they can join together. Unlike in a class suit, the subject matter is of interest to everybody and we cannot all be joined because we are so numerous.

BULIG-BULIG KITA KAMAGANAK ASSOCIATION, ET AL vs. SULPICIO LINES

May 19, 1989




RE: Doña Paz Tragedy – iyong lumubog na barko owned by Sulpicio Lines.FACTS: There we so many relatives who filed a case against Sulpicio Lines

and there was an attempt to file a class suit in behalf of everyone who were drowned including those who were not identified.

HELD: That cannot be. The survivors have no interest in the death of other passengers. The interest in this case is individual. What would have been proper is permissive joinder of parties because of common question of tact or law, but not class suit.

OPOSA vs. FACTORAN224 SCRA 12 [1993]

FACTS: Oposa et al were all minors. Some were small boys duly represented by their parents. They filed a case against then DENR Secretary Factoran. The prayer in the case is to order the DENR to cancel all existing Timber License Agreements (TLA’s), to cease and desist from proceeding, accepting, processing, renewing all accruing new TLA’s. So, in effect, it prays for a total log ban in the country to preserve the remaining forest all over the Philippines.

These young boys sue with their parents. They are suing in their behalf, in behalf of the other citizens who are of their age because they stand to suffer if the environment will be deteriorated. They say that they are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resources of our country’s rich tropical rainforests. They say, the case was tiled for themselves and others for the preservation of our rainforest and we are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring all plaintiffs to court. They say that they represent their generations and generations yet unborn.

HELD: The civil case is indeed a class suit. The case however has a special and novel element. The personality of the minors to sue for the succeeding generations is based on the concept of inter-generational responsibility insofar as a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Every generation has a responsibility to preserve the ecology. The minors’ right to a sound environment constitute at the same time the performance of the obligation to ensure the protection of the rights or the generations to come.

Q: In case of doubt, should a class suit be allowed?A: NO. When the issue is not so clear, a class suit should not be allowed because class

suit is an exception to the general rule that all parties should be included.

CADALIN vs. POEA ADMINISTRATOR238 SCRA 721 [1995]

HELD: While it is true that class suit is allowed, it should be allowed with caution because the fact that you represent others is only a fiction of law. For all you know, those others may not want to be represented. So okey lang kung manalo ang kaso. Eh kung matalo ang kaso? All others start blaming you. That is why the court is extra-cautious in allowing class suits because they are the exceptions to the condition sine qua non requiring joinder of all indispensable parties.

In an improperly instituted class suit, there would be no problem it the decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs. The problem arises where the decision is adverse to them. In which case, the parties who are impleaded through their self-appointed representatives would surely plead denial of due process.

Q: Distinguish a representative suit from a class suit.A: In the case of




LIANA’S SUPERMARKET vs. NLRC257 SCRA 186 [May 31, 1996]

FACTS: A labor union filed a case against the employer in behalf of hundreds of employees. Is this a representative suit or a class suit?

HELD: “What makes the situation a proper case for a class suit is the circumstance that there is only one right or cause of action pertaining or belonging in common to many persons, not separately or severally to distinct individuals. The object of the suit is to obtain relief for or against numerous persons as a group or as an integral entity, and not as separate, distinct individuals whose rights or liabilities are separate from and independent of those affecting the others.”

In a representative suit, there are different causes of action pertaining different persons.

“In the present case, there are multiple rights or causes of action pertaining separately to several, distinct employees who are members of respondent Union. Therefore, the applicable rule is that provided in Rule 3 on Representative Parties. Nonetheless, as provided for in the Labor Code, a legitimate labor organization has the right to sue and be sued in its registered name. This authorizes a union to file a representative suit for the benefit of its members in the interest of avoiding an otherwise cumbersome procedure of joining all union members in the complaint, even if they number by the hundreds.” For convenience, the Labor Code allows a union to file a representative suit.

It is important to note the following:1. CLASS SUIT2. REPRESENTATIVE SUIT3. DERIVATIVE SUIT – only peculiar to the corporation law where the minority files a

suit in behalf of the entire corporation because intra-corporate remedy is useless.

ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANTS

Sec. 13. Alternative defendants. Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief against the other. (13a)

Alternative defendants is also related to alternative causes of action – even if your right against one is inconsistent with your right to relief against the other party, you may file a suit against the alternative defendant. (c.f. Rule 2, Section 5 – Joinder of Causes of Action)

You filed a case against the operators of two vehicles. In effect, your cause of action is either culpa aquiliana or culpa contractual. Is that not inconsistent? The law says, “although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right against the other.” In other words, even if the two causes of action is inconsistent with each other, it is allowed.

As a matter of fact, this is the best policy because the plaintiff is a sure winner . The only question is, who among the two will be held liable.

Although the law is silent, if there is such a thing as “alternative defendants,” there is no reason why the grounds for “alternative plaintiffs” should not be allowed.

Q: (Taken from Remedial Law Reviewer by Nuevas) May plaintiff join in the alternative?




A: YES, plaintiffs may join in the alternative under the same principle as alternative joinder of defendants. When several persons are uncertain as to who among them is entitled to relief from a certain defendant, they may join as plaintiffs in the alternative. This is also sanctioned by the rule on permissive joinder of parties (Pajota vs. Jante, L-6014, Feb. 8, 1955). Thus, the principal and his agent may join as plaintiffs in the alternative against a defendant. If the agency is proved, the relief is awarded to the principal. If not, award is then made to the agent.

Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accord. (14)

Q: Can you sue somebody who is unknown?A: YES, under Section 14.

BAR PROBLEM: While Leyva “The Rapper” was walking on the street. He was bumped by a car, say a Toyota Altis, 2001 model, color blue. Now, so far, he could not determine who is the owner. If you are the lawyer of the Leyva, how would you sue the defendant?

A: Under Section, I will sue the owner of that car as an unknown defendant. I can place in my complaint, “Leyva ‘the rapper’, plaintiff, vs. the registered owner of Honda motor vehicle with plate number so and so.” And later if you discover the true identity of the owner, we can amend the complaint to place the name of the defendant.

Section 14 is similar with Rule 110 in Criminal Procedure – a case may be filed against an unknown accused.

RULE 110, SEC. 7. Name of the accused. – The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is known. If his name cannot be ascertained, he must be described under a fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.

If the true name of the accused is thereafter disclosed by him or appears in some other manner to the court, such true name shall be inserted in the complaint or information and record. (7a)

ENTITY WITHOUT JURIDICAL PERSONALITY AS DEFENDANTSec. 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant. When two or more

persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known.

In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons composing said entity must all be revealed.

Rule 1, Section 1 provides that only natural of juridical persons may be sued.

Entity ‘without’ juridical personality as defendant. Under the old law, this was known as suing two or more persons involved in a business under a common name. When two or more persons transact in a business under a common name, they may be sued under their common name.

Q: Who are really the defendants here? A: The persons involved.

Now, it is worded in this manner: “When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality,” instead of a ‘common name.’ You cannot sue the entity because it has no juridical personality. But you do not also know the members of that entity, so the law allows you to file a case against the entity.

Under the second paragraph of Section 15, when the defendants file an answer, they must file under their names as they are really the real parties in interest. When the lawyer answers the complaint, he is duty-bound to provide the names of all the defendants.




Q: How do you summon this kind of defendant?A: Rule 14, Section 8:

RULE 14, Sec. 8. Service upon entity without juridical personality. When persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in such name. But such service shall not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due notice, been severed before the action was brought. (9a)

Correlate this with Rule 36, Section 6:Sec. 6. Judgment against entity without juridical personality. When judgment

is rendered against two or more persons sued as an entity without juridical personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or proper names, if known. (6a)

GENERAL RULE: actions must be filed against real parties in interest.EXCEPTIONS: (When may an action be filed without naming all the parties in involved?)

1. Class suit (Section 12, Rule 3);2. Entity without juridical personality (Section 15, Rule 3);3. Any co-owners may bring an action for ejectment (Article 487, New Civil Code)

EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTYSec. 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a party to a pending

action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (16, 17a)

First of all, there are cases when a party to a pending action dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished (this is what they called an action which survives as we will explain later) and there are certain actions where if a party dies, the claim is automatically extinguished. Meaning, the death of a party causes death of the action. But these are very few. Majority of cases when the party dies, the case or the cause of action continues.

It is the duty of the lawyer of the deceased to inform the court within 30 days after the death of the party thereof. He must inform the court and give the name and address of his legal representative/s (e.g. administrator of executor of the estate)

Well of course, under the rule in legal ethics, the lawyer - client relationship is

automatically terminated by the death of the client because the lawyer-client relationship is personal. But procedurally, you must tell the court and you must give the name of the legal representative. The latter may re-hire the lawyer but under a new contract.




The purpose there is for substitution so that the legal representative will be ordered substituted. And there is a new provision under the new rules. That is, failure of the counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action. That is not found in the prior rule. So, the lawyer can be subjected to disciplinary action.

So the provision continues, “the heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator. And the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

So, other than the legal representative, before anything else, the representative refers to the executor or administrator, and the other alternative will be the heirs, such as the surviving children, wife or spouse.

Although there was a case decided by the SC way back in 1986 in the case of

LAWAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS146 SCRA 173

HELD: “The priority of substitution would be the executor or administrator not the heirs. The heirs would only be allowed to be substituted if there is an (1) unreasonable delay in the appointment of administrator or executor, or (2) when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition. But outside of those two reason, the law always gives priority to the administrator or executor.”

Under the rule, priority is given co the legal representative of the deceased. That is, the executor or the administrator of his estate. Many courts do not enforce it strictly. Normally, patay na, “O! Ito ang heirs o!” “OK! Substitute!” Actually, that is wrong based on LAWAS case. The priority is given to the administrator or executor. It is only when there is unreasonable delay in the appointment, or when the heirs resort to extrajudicial partition because there is no more administrator or executor in extrajudicial settlement.

VDA. DE SALAZAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS250 SCRA 303 [November 23, 1995]

FACTS: This is an ejectment. case. The defendant died while the case is going on. What is the procedure? There should be substitution. But there was no substitution in the case for ten years, until it was decided. The court was not informed of the death of the defendant. Until finally, there was a decision.

ISSUE: When there is failure to effectuate the substitution of heirs before the rendition of judgment, is the judgment jurisdictionally detective? Because here, the case continued eh, in which somebody is already dead.

HELD: NO, “the judgment is valid where the heirs themselves appeared before the trial court and participated in the proceedings. Therein, they presented evidence in defense of the deceased defendant. It is undeniably evident that the heirs themselves sought their day in court and exercised their right to due process.”

In other words, when there was a defect the heirs however cannot used that because they themselves appeared and continued the case. So, in effect, there was estoppel.

EFFECT OF DEATH OF A PARTY ON MONEY CLAIMS

Now, one of the radical changes again introduced by the new rules is the effect of the death of the defendant in a money claim – action to collect a sum of money.

Sec. 20. Action on contractual money claims. When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the




plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)

The best example here is an action to collect an unpaid loan. And while the case is pending the defendant died. What will happen to the case? The law says: If the defendant dies before the entry of the final judgment in the court at the time of death, it shall not be dismissed but it shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment.

Under the OLD RULES, the case shall be dismissed. So, the civil case is not suspended but it will be dismissed. Eh, paano 'yung utang? Now, you file a case against the estate of the deceased under the Rules on Special Proceedings. But definitely the civil case hindi na matuloy . . . patay na iyon when the defendant dies.

Now, under the NEW RULE, the case will not be dismissed but rather, the case will now continue until entry of final judgment. That is a radical change of procedure! So case will not be dismissed. It shall be allowed to continue until entry of final judgement. Meaning, until it becomes final and executory.

Q: But of course, if the judgment is favorable to you (the plaintiff), can you move to execute? Can you move to execute the decision against or buy the property of the defendant?

A: NO, because the law provides, “xxx a favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner specially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person.”

Q: And what is that procedure?A: YOU FILE A CLAIM against the estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court,

but there will be no execution.

[Note: SEE OUTLINE AT THE LAST PART OF THIS RULE.]

Q: We are talking of death of a party in a pending civil action. While there is a case and a party dies, what will happen to the case?

A: I will distinguish – Anong klaseng kaso iyan. Is that an ACTION WHICH DOES NOT SURVIVE or an ACTION WHICH SURVIVES?

1.) ACTION WHICH DOES NOT SURVIVEAn action which does not survive is an action which is abated upon the death of a party. The case cannot go on once a party dies. And normally, that refers to actions which are purely personal in character like an action for annulment of marriages, an action for declaration of the nullity of marriage or, an action for legal separation, or an action for support. These are the cases arising from the Family Code.

Example: The husband files a case against the wife for annulment of marriage or legal separation. One of them dies. Wala nang substitution, TAPOS NA! When one of the parties dies, the marriage is dissolved. There is nothing to annul because the marriage is already dissolved. So, these are the actions which are purely personal .

Q: So, what is the effect of the death of the party in actions which does not survived?

A: The case is dismissed!

However, these cases are very few. Majority of the cases are damage suit, recovery of possession, recovery of land, recovery of unpaid loans, etc. So, these are what you call actions which survive. Meaning , if a party dies, you cannot say that the case is terminated upon the death of the party. So, ano ang mga kaso na iyan?




2.) ACTIONS WHICH SURVIVE – Is it a contractual money claim or non-contractual claim? If it is a contractual claim, who died – is it the plaintiff or is it the defendant? If the defendant is the one who died, when did he die?

2a.) Actions which survive; CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:

2a1.) If it is the plaintiff who dies, the case will continue. The heirs or legal representatives will proceed. So, there is substitution.

2a2.) If it is the defendant who dies, the question is: KAILAN NAMATAY? Before entry of final judgment or after entry? This is where Section 20 will come in.

2a2a.) If the defendant died before entry of final judgment , you apply Section 20 of Rule 3. Meaning, the case shall not be dismissed but shall be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. And the favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person, and that is Section 5 of Rule 86.

2a2b.) If the defendant died after the entry of the final judgment but before execution (after the judgment became final but before there could be levy or execution) you cannot move to execute. Again, you apply Section 5 of Rule 86 which is the governing rule – you file your judgment as a claim against the estate of the deceased defendant. [Section 5, Rule 86 - Please refer to your codals.] The purpose there is, so that the creditor will share with the other creditors pro-rata in the distribution of the estate.

2a2c) If the defendant died after levy or execution but before the auction sale – meaning, the property was already levied by the sheriff bago pa namatay – we will now apply Section 7[c] of Rule 39:

Rule 39, Sec. 7. Execution in case of death of party. In case of the death of party, execution may issue or be enforced in the following manner:

x x x x x x (c) In case of the death of the judgment obligor, after execution is

actually levied upon any of his property, the same may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer making the sale shall account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in his hands. (7a)

Meaning, after the levy, namatay, auction sale proceeds as scheduled. And if there is an excess, the excess shall be delivered to the administrator of executor.

2b.) Actions which survive; NON-CONTRACTUAL MONEY CLAIMS:EXAMPLE: an action for recovery of property, real or personal like

replevin, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, action publiciana, action reinvidicatoria, or action for damages, (damages that is not the same for transaction of money because damages arising from culpa aquiliana is one not arising from contract.)

If a party dies in an action which survives which is a non-contractual money claim, obviously, there is substitution of parties. So, what are these non-contractual money claims which survive? These are those mentioned in Section 7 of Rule 86 and Section 1 of Rule 87. That is in the study of Special Proceedings on settlement of the estate of a deceased person.

So, that is the outline in the light of the amendments of the Rules of Court. [PLEASE REFER TO THE OUTLINE HEREIN ATTACHED.]

Note: What Section 20 says is that: before the case can be decided and the defendant dies (in actions involving money claims) the case shall not be dismissed but shall instead




be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. BUT CONTINUE AGAINST WHOM? Against the deceased? Now, to my mind, you correlate this with Section 16 --- there should still be substitution.

But assuming, there was no substitution and the heirs fought in the case; there is waiver because the defect is procedural. Just like what happened in the case of VDA. DE SALAZAR. Actually, what Section 20 emphasized is that, the action shall not be dismissed but shall continue – to emphasize that it is now different compared with the prior RULE. But obviously, there will always be a substitution

Sec. 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)

This applies only when the public officer is party to an action in his official capacity. If he (1) dies; (2) resigns; or (3) cease to hold office, there will be a succession.

Q: What will happen to the case?A: The following:

1.) If the successor intends to continue with the policy.EXAMPLE: Mayor Pascua threatened to demolish the building of Mr. Nuere

as a hazard. If Mayor Pascua dies, Vice-Mayor Angeles becomes the mayor. If Vice-Mayor Angeles who is now the mayor says that he will continue with the demolition, he will be substituted and he is given 30 days to comment.

2.) If the successor does not adopt the policy, the case will be dismissed .

Sec. 18. Incompetency or incapacity. If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)

EXAMPLE: Francis files a case against Kenneth. While the case is pending, Kenneth becomes insane. (tsk! tsk!) The case will continue but Kenneth has to be assisted by his guardian ad litem Thad.

This is related to Rule 3, Section 3 on representative party but in Section 3, Kenneth was already insane before the case is filed. [inborn na yan eh!]

Sec. 19. Transfer of interest. In case of any transfer of interest , the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. (20)

EXAMPLE: Rudolpho files a case against Leweh to recover a piece of land. While the case is pending, Leweh sold the land to Erec. Erec now assumes the risk and takes the property subject to the outcome of the case.

Q: Can the case continue against Leweh?A: YES.

1.) If Leweh loses and cannot pay, Erec is subsidiary liable;2.) Leweh can be removed and Erec will be substituted; or3.) Leweh can stay and Erec will be added.

In all 3 cases, Erec will be bound by the judgment.Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 92



Sec. 21. Indigent party. A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him. 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 the court otherwise provides.

Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court should determine after hearing that the party declared as an indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and collected by the clerk of court. If payment is not made within the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue for the payment thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court may impose. (22a)

In criminal cases, the court assigns a counsel de officio. Under the Constitution on Bill of Rights, no person shall be denied access to courts by reason of poverty.

In civil cases, a plaintiff need not pay docket fee if he is an indigent if he files an application (ex-party application) to allow him to litigate as an indigent litigant. But if the indigent wins, he has to pay the fees – file now, pay later) – the amount shall be a lien on any favorable judgment.

The third paragraph is new. The other party may contest the claim of the indigent if he is really an indigent or not.

Sec. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or through a representative duly designated by him. (23a)

EXAMPLE: Inday (the love-is-blind club president) files a case against Kenneth Bruce Lim for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity. Kenneth alleges that Article 38 of the Family Code is unconstitutional. So the court will rule on the validity of the law in which case, the Solicitor General has to be involved in the case to defend the validity of the law.

REASON: The Solicitor General is the legal counsel of the Republic of the Philippines whose duty is to defend all the official acts of the Government.

published by

LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion • Joseph Martin Castillo • Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo •

Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales • Regina Sison • Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora •

Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio • Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera •

Marlon Cascuejo • Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes • Maila Ilao • Ilai Llena • Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili




LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin • Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres • Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin •

Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos • Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco •

Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon • Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •Joshua Tan • Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort


rule 03-parties to civil actions

Documents