Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Super Lines V PNCC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    histab
    Superlines Transportation Company sued Philippine National Construction Company and Pedro Balubal after one of Superlines' buses crashed into PNCC's radio room. PNCC refused to return the bus to Superlines despite offers to repair the damage. The court ruled that (1) Superlines' claim for damages could not be addressed because indispensable parties like the traffic investigator were not included, and (2) the failure to include indispensable parties was not grounds for dismissal, but the case could not proceed until they were added. The court ordered Superlines to implead the indispensable parties for the case to continue.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Super Lines V PNCC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    histab
    1K views2 pages
    Superlines Transportation Company sued Philippine National Construction Company and Pedro Balubal after one of Superlines' buses crashed into PNCC's radio room. PNCC refused to return the bus to Superlines despite offers to repair the damage. The court ruled that (1) Superlines' claim for damages could not be addressed because indispensable parties like the traffic investigator were not included, and (2) the failure to include indispensable parties was not grounds for dismissal, but the case could not proceed until they were added. The court ordered Superlines to implead the indispensable parties for the case to continue.

    Original Title

    Super Lines v PNCC Case Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Superlines Transportation Company sued Philippine National Construction Company and Pedro Balubal after one of Superlines' buses crashed into PNCC's radio room. PNCC refused to return the bus to Superlines despite offers to repair the damage. The court ruled that (1) Superlines' claim for damages could not be addressed because indispensable parties like the traffic investigator were not included, and (2) the failure to include indispensable parties was not grounds for dismissal, but the case could not proceed until they were added. The court ordered Superlines to implead the indispensable parties for the case to continue.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Super Lines V PNCC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    histab
    Superlines Transportation Company sued Philippine National Construction Company and Pedro Balubal after one of Superlines' buses crashed into PNCC's radio room. PNCC refused to return the bus to Superlines despite offers to repair the damage. The court ruled that (1) Superlines' claim for damages could not be addressed because indispensable parties like the traffic investigator were not included, and (2) the failure to include indispensable parties was not grounds for dismissal, but the case could not proceed until they were added. The court ordered Superlines to implead the indispensable parties for the case to continue.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs.

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
    CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and PEDRO BALUBAL, Respondents

    G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007

    CARPIO MORALES, J.:

    FACTS:

    Superlines Transportation Company (Superlines) is engaged in the business of


    providing public transportation. On 13 December 1990, one of its buses swerved
    and crashed into the radio room of respondent Philippine National Construction
    Company (PNCC).

    The incident was initially investigated by PNCC’s toll way patrol, Sofronio Salvanera,
    and Pedro Balubal, then head of traffic control and security department of the South
    Luzon tollway. The bus was then towed by the PNCC patrol upon request of traffic
    investigator Cesar Lopera.

    Superlines made several requests for PNCC to release the bus, but Balubal denied
    the same, despite Superlines’ undertaking to repair the damaged radio room.
    Superlines thus filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damages
    against PNCC and Balubal. The claim for damages, however, failed to implead
    Lopera and any other police officer responsible for the seizure and distraint of the
    bus as indispensable parties.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not Superlines’ claim for damages against can be passed upon.

    Whether or not Superlines’ failure to implead indispensable parties is fatal to its


    cause of action.

    RULING:

    Anent the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The reason is that a
    contract of deposit was perfected between the police authorities, through Lopera,
    and PNCC, the former having turned over the bus to PNCC for safekeeping. Hence,
    for Superlines to pursue its claim for damages, it or the trial court motu proprio
    must implead as defendants the indispensable parties.

    With respect to the second issue, the Court ruled, again, in the negative.
    Accordingly, the failure of Superlines to implead indispensable parties is not fatal to
    its cause of action, since misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is not a ground for its
    dismissal. In other words, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground
    for the dismissal of an action. According to Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court,
    parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its own
    initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner
    refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter
    may dismiss the petition for its failure to comply therefor. The remedy is to implead
    the non-party claimed to be indispensable.

    You might also like