This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-03-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As we have stressed emphatically on previous occasions, the rules of procedure may not be misused and abused as instruments for the denial of substantial justice. Here is another demonstrative instance of how some members of the bar, availing themselves of their proficiency in invoking the letter of the rules without regard to their real spirit and intent, succeed in inducing courts to act contrary to the dictates of justice and equity, and, in some instances, to wittingly or unwittingly abet unfair advantage by ironically camouflaging their actuations as earnest efforts to satisfy the public clamor for speedy disposition of litigations, forgetting all the while that the plain injunction of Section 2 of Rule 1 is that the "rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining" not only "speedy" but more imperatively, "just ... and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."[18] | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Rule 3, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants. The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires, of course, the joinder of all necessary parties where possible, and the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non for the exercise of judicial power.[12] It is precisely "when an indispensable party is not before the court [that] the action should be dismissed."[13] The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions 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.[14] | |||||