Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON P. ARON v. FRANCISCO REALON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 150180 2008-10-17	FLAVIO S. SUAREZ v. NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioners' contention has no leg to stand on. It is undisputed that respondent company was not a party to the case decided by the CA, Twelfth Division. Well-settled is the rule that one who is not a party to a case is not bound by any decision of the court; otherwise he will be deprived of his right to due process.[28] Respondent was never impleaded nor did it intervene in the said case relied upon by petitioners. Thus, the decision rendered by the CA, Twelfth Division cannot be enforced against respondent consistent with the rule enunciated by this Court that a person who was not impleaded in a case could not be bound by the decision rendered thereon for no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.[29] We agree with the CA that for its Fifteenth Division to simply adopt the findings of its Twelfth Division in a case wherein respondent was not impleaded as a party and did participate therein violates respondent's right to due process. Respondent had the right to have its own appeal evaluated by the appellate court on its own merits and not on the merits of another party's appeal.
	AM NO. RTJ-07-2047 2007-07-03	RUSSEL ESTEVA CORONADO v. JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS NACHURA, J.
The complainants not having been joined as party-defendants, it was error on the part of Judge Rojas to have denied the motion to dismiss. Indeed, complainants were indispensable parties with such interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their rights so that the court could not proceed without their presence[17] and all its subsequent actuations were rendered null and void.[18] Judge Rojas had forgotten the rule that if the suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party-in-interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action.[19]
	GR NO. 143870 2005-09-30	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. RIVERA VILLAGE LESSEE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TINGA, J.
It is a settled rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary must be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the real party-in-interest. The name of such beneficiaries shall, likewise, be included in the complaint.[19]