Rules of Court + Jurisprudence

Rules of Court + Jurisprudence
RULE 3. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS.

Section 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.
Rule 37. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION.

Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration. –
Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside
the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially
affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have
guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his
rights; or (b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have
discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the
grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the
decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law.
DR. JOSEPH L. MALIXI vs.DR. GLORY V. BALTAZAR, G.R. No. 208224, 2017
In Paras v. Judge Baldado, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners' Petition for
Certiorari on purely procedural grounds. It found that petitioners failed to attach the required
certified true copy of the assailed Regional Trial Court Order in their petition.76 This Court set
aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals and held:
The records reveal that duplicate original copies of the said RTC orders were in fact
attached to one of the seven copies of the petition filed with the Court of Appeals;
moreover, copies of the same orders, this time accomplished by the clerk of court, were
submitted by petitioners in their motion for reconsideration. Thus, the Court finds that there
was substantial compliance with the requirement and the Court of Appeals should have
given the petition due course.
"Cases should be determined on the merits, after full opportunity to all parties for
ventilation of their causes and defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural
imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served better."
Circumstances that may merit the relaxation of procedural rules are enumerated in Barnes
v. Hon. Quijano Padilla, citing Sanchez v. Court of Appeals:
In the Sanchez case, the Court restated the range of reasons which may provide justification
for a court to resist a strict adherence to procedure, enumerating the elements for an appeal
to be given due course by a suspension of procedural rules, such as: (a) matters of life,
liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the
merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party
favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory, and (t) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
thereby.
MA. ELENA R. DIVINAGRACIA vs. CORONACION PARILLA, G.R. No. 196750, 2015
In fine, the absence of the aforementioned indispensable parties in the instant complaint
for judicial partition renders all subsequent actions of the RTC null and void for want of authority
to act, not only as to the absent parties, but even as to those present. Therefore, the CA correctly
set aside the November 29, 2002 Decision and the April 4, 2003 Order of the RTC.
However, the CA erred in ordering the dismissal of the complaint on account of
Santiago’s failure to implead all the indispensable parties in his complaint.1âwphi1 In Heirs
of Mesina v. Heirs of Fian, Sr., the Court definitively explained that in instances of non-
joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss
the case, to wit:
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. At
any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are just, parties may be added on
the motion of a party or on the initiative of the tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses
to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the
complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order.
The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. x x x (Underscoring
supplied; emphases in the original)
In view of the foregoing, the correct course of action in the instant case is to order its
remand to the RTC for the inclusion of those indispensable parties who were not impleaded and
for the disposition of the case on the merits.

Rules of Court + Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rules of Court + Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rules of Court + Jurisprudence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rules of Court + Jurisprudence

RULE 3. PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS.

Rule 37. NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION.

You might also like