RULE 3, RULES OF COURT
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
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. (8a)
Section 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)
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES VS NECESSARY PARTIES
This section enunciates the rule on permissive joinder of parties, that is, they can either be joined in one
single complaint or may themselves maintain or be sued in separate suits. This rule is also applicable to
counterclaims (Go, et al. vs. Go, et al., 95 Phil. 378).
In the case of indispensable parties, the action cannot proceed unless they are joined (Borlasa
vs. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345; Cortez vs. Avila, 101 Phil. 705), whereas the action can proceed even in
the absence of some necessary parties. If an indispensable party is not impleaded, any judgment
would have no effectiveness; whereas, even if a necessary party is not included in the suit, the
case may be finally determined in court, but the judgment therein will not resolve the whole
controversy.
An indispensable party must be joined under any and all conditions while a necessary party
should be joined whenever possible (Borlasa v. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345, 348). Stated otherwise, an
indispensable party must be joined because the court cannot proceed without him. Hence, his
presence is mandatory.
The presence of a necessary party is not mandatory because his interest is separable from that
of the indispensable party. He has to be joined whenever possible to afford complete relief to
those who are already parties and to avoid multiple litigations.
Indispensable parties are those with such an interest in the controversy that a final decree
would necessarily affect their rights, so that the court cannot proceed without their presence.
Necessary parties are those whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy
but whose interests are so far separable that a final decree can be mad e in their absence
without affecting them (Wyoga Gas & Oil Corp. vs Schrack, 1 Fed. Rules Service, 292, cited in 1
Moran 191, 1979 Ed.).
RELEVENT CASES ON INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
BPI v CA GR NO. 146923
In BPI v. Court of Appeals,33 this Court explained:
. . . An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court's action in the litigation,
and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party's interest in the subject
matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the other parties' that his
legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity. In his absence there cannot be a
resolution of the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, or equitable.
Conversely, 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 be prejudiced by a
judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court. He is not indispensable if his presence
would merely permit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action or will simply
avoid multiple litigation.
Domingo vs. Scheer (421 SCRA 468)
The joinder of indispensable parties under Sec 7, Rule 3 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. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void. There is lack of
authority to act not only as to the absent party but also as to those present. The responsibility of
impleading all the indispensable parties rests on the petitioner/plaintiff.
However, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for dismissal of an action.
Uy vs. CA (494 SCRA 535)
An indispensable party is one whose interest will be affected by the court‘s action in the
litigation and without whom no final determination of the case can be had. The party‘s interest
in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought are so inextricably intertwined with the
other parties‘ that his legal presence as a party to the proceeding is an absolute necessity.
Indispensable parties must be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Whenever it appears to
the court in the course of a proceeding that an indispensable party has not been joined, it is the
duty of the court to stop trial and to order the inclusion of such party. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actuations of the court null and void, for want of
authority to act, not only as to the absent parties, but even as to those present.
The responsibility of impleading all indispensable parties rests on the plaintiff. Defendant does
not have the right to compel the plaintiff to prosecute the action against a party if he does not
wish to do so, but the plaintiff will have to suffer the consequences of any error he might
commit in exercising his option.
