WHO MAY BE PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS

Who may be parties to civil actions?

There are several special rules on this topic, and these are found in Sections 1 to 22 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

These parties are called plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff is the claiming party, while the defendant is the party who is opposing the plaintiff’s claim. Remember that the designations of parties in ordinary civil actions are plaintiff and defendant. Not petitioner and respondent which refers to special proceedings.


There are three kinds of parties to civil actions

1. Natural persons
2. Juridical persons
3. Entities authorized by law

A natural person is an individual human being. A juridical person is a fictional person is created by law.

Under Article 44 of the New Civil Code there are 3 kinds of juridical persons:

(1) The State and its political subdivisions, such as local governments;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law, such as government-owned or controlled corporations; 
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose. These are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission

A sole proprietorship is not authorized by law to be a party. What I mean is that it cannot sue or be sued under its business name. The person to sue or be sued is the individual owner, but you can indicate that he/she is doing business under the name style of the single proprietorship business, and you should include the business name along with the name of its owner.

Let’s look at a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2002. It is the case of Anita Mangila vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 125027.

This caseinvolved two individuals, Anita Mangila who resided in Pampanga and Loreta Guina who resided in Paranaque.

Mangila is a seafood exporter doing business under the name and style Seafood Products. This is a sole proprietorship business. Guina has a freight forwarding business under the name and style of Air Swift International, also a single proprietorship.

Mangila engaged the services of Guina to transport seafood products from the Philippines to Guam. The items were shipped but Mangila did not pay on time despite demand.

Guina filed a complaint for sum of money against Mangila in the RTC of Pasay City. She filed it in Pasay City because that was the location of her sole proprietorship business Air Swift International.

There were a number of issues raised in this case, and one of them is improper venue.
The issue was: is it proper for the plaintiff to file the complaint in Pasay City where her sole proprietorship business is located, instead of plaintiff’s residence which is Paranaque or defendant’s residence which is Pampanga?

The Supreme Court held that venue was improper. The case should have been filed either in Paranaque or Pampanga, residence of plaintiff and defendant respectively. It should not have been filed in Pasay where the sole proprietorship business is located. 

It would have been different if the business is a corporation, which has a separate legal personality. On the other hand, in a sole proprietorship, the legal personality belongs to its owner, who is a natural person.

Another important case is Berman Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Cheng, decided in 2005.

In this case, Iloilo Memorial Park was impleaded as a Defendant. In the course of the proceedings, it was revealed that Iloilo Memorial Park is not a corporation. It is just a business name used by its owner for the memorial park. The owner of Iloilo Memorial Park was Berman Memorial Park, Inc. which is registered as a corporation. The Supreme Court ordered that Berman Memorial Park, Inc. should be impleaded as a party instead of Iloilo Memorial Park


Real parties in interest

It is important that a person who is impleaded as a party to a civil action is a real party-in-interest. Section 2 of Rule 3 defines real party-in-interest:

The interest of a party, either as a plaintiff or defendant, should be real and substantial. It should be an existing interest, one that is in esse, and not a future or inchoate one.

To determine who the real party in interest is, let us go back to the elements of a cause of action: the plaintiff's right, the defendant's obligation to respect that right, and the violation that causes damage or injury. A person can be a plaintiff if he is the owner of the right that is violated. A person can be the defendant if he was the one who committed the violated.

Thus, suppose there was a vehicular collision in which the driver of a car was injured but a passerby was not. In an action for damages due to physical injury, the driver is a real party in interest and he can bring the action as a plaintiff. The passerby cannot bring the action as a party plaintiff because he had no right that was violated by the driver.

Section 2 also states that the action must be brought in the name of the real party-in-interest. The name of the real party in interest must be stated in the title of the Complaint, either as Plaintiff or Defendant.

Even if he is a minor or an incompetent person who is under guardianship, the name of the minor or the incompetent person must be stated in the title of the Complaint, together with the name of his father, mother, guardian or guardian ad litem. (Section 5)

If the person named as Plaintiff or Defendant is not the real party in interest, Defendant can raise the affirmative defense that the Complaint states no cause of action. (Aguila vs. Court of Appeals, 319 SCRA 253).

I said earlier that the interest of a person should be in esse or already existing. Suppose Pedro is a widower. He has one son, George.  Pedro sold his land to Maria, but Pedro's son George now brings an action to nullify the sale, claiming that he is interested in the land because he is a future heir of Pedro, and he should not be deprived of his share. Since Pedro is still alive, the son George has no right over his father's property and cannot bring an action to nullify the sale. Pedro can freely dispose of his property as an owner.


Spouses as parties

When the case is against a husband and wife, they must be sued jointly, as a general rule. This is because of the presumption that their property regime is absolute community under the Family Code. However, there are instances when they may not be sued jointly.

Suppose the husband owns a piece of property that he received by inheritance during the marriage. This is his exclusive property. If that property becomes the subject of a case, only the husband has to be impleaded as a party defendant.


Indispensable parties

Rule 3, Section 7 requires that all indispensable parties be joined either as Plaintiffs or Defendants. It defines indispensable parties are those "without whom no final determination can be had of an action."

In Ma. Elena R. Divinagracia vs. Coronacion Parilla et al, GR No. 196750, March 11, 2015, the Supreme Court stated:

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 is 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. Thus, 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.

As an example, let us suppose that Juan, Pedro and Maria are siblings and they are co-owners of a parcel of land. Juan wants to have the land partitioned. Pedro and Maria are not willing to have the property partitioned. Juan now brings an action for partition but impleads Pedro only.

Can the case proceed? No. Maria is an indispensable party because the partition case cannot be completely decided without her participation. She has to be impleaded in the case as a Defendant. Under the rules on partition, if a co-owner refuses to join as plaintiff, he/she should be joined as defendant.

Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties

Indispensable parties should be joined, either as Plaintiffs or Defendants (Section 7). Otherwise, the case cannot proceed because it cannot result in a full resolution.

The court will not dismiss a case when an indispensable party is not joined. Instead, it will issue an Order to implead or join the indispensable party in the case. According to Section 11, non-joinder of parties is not a ground to dismiss a case.

Necessary party

A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who should be joined so that complete relief may be had (Section 8). In other words, the case can proceed even without that party and can be partly resolved. However, there can only be a complete resolution if the necessary party is joined.

A simple illustration is in order so you can understand this. Let's think of a "joint obligation" for a sum of money. "Debtor 1" and "Debtor 2" borrowed P100,000 from "Creditor" under a single promissory note.

It was agreed that "Debtor 1" and “Debtor 2" will each be liable for P50,000, for a total of P100,000.

After the lapse of the deadline for payment, and despite repeated demands, both debtors did not pay.

The Creditor should sue both Debtors for P100,000 under the promissory note so that he can recover the full amount.

If the creditor cannot locate "Debtor 1", he can sue "Debtor 2" for P50,000. The case can proceed against "Debtor 2" and be resolved against him to the extent of P50,000. Note that under Section 9, the creditor should explain why he cannot implead "Debtor 1" in this case.

According to 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)

Unwilling co-plaintiff

According to Section 10 on unwilling co-plaintiff, "If the consent of any party who should be joined as plaintiff can not be obtained, he may be made a defendant and the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint."

Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

Under Section 11 on misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, "Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a 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."


Class suit

Section 12 on class suit provides that "When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest."

The requisites are:

1. Subject matter is of common or general interest to all;
2. Persons are too numerous to bring them all before the court;
3. Suit is brought on their behalf by persons who are sufficiently numerous and representative.


An example in the imposition of toll fees along the expressway. Thousands of people use the expressway everyday. There is an impending toll fee increase, and users of the toll road would like to prevent it. This can be the subject of a class suit.

Here's an example of a case that is not a class suit: A vessel with 300 passengers sank and all passengers died. Relatives sue the shipping company for damages for their respective losses. This is not proper for a class suit because not all requisites are present. The claims of the relatives for their respective losses (damages) are specific to them, and not of a common or general interest to all.


Alternative defendants

According to Section 13 on alternative defendants, "Where the plaintiff is uncertain against who of several persons he is entitled to relief, he may join any or all of them as defendants in the alternative, although a right to relief against one may be inconsistent with a right of relief against the other."


For example, we have a shipper (sender) of goods from China to Manila that engaged the services of a shipping company in China and warehouse in Manila for storage. When the consignee (recipient) received the goods in Manila, 50% were damaged. 

The consignee wants to sue for damages, but is not sure where the damage occurred – during shipping from China to Manila, or when the items were already in the warehouse in Manila. The consignee can sue both shipping company and warehouse company as alternative parties.


Unknown identity of defendant

Section 14 on unknown identity or name of defendant states: "Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require, when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly."


Entity without juridical personality

Section 15 governs entities without juridical personality as defendant. It provides: "When two or more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known.

For example, Juan, Maria and Pedro hold themselves out as doing business under the name JMP company but did not register with the SEC. They caused damage to a client named George. George can sue them under the name JMP Company, In their answer, they should state their respective names and addresses.

Death of party

Under Section 16 on the death of a party:

Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as costs. (16a, 17a)

Death or separation of a party who is a public officer

Section 17. Death or separation of a party who is a public officer. — When a public officer is a party in an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor if, within thirty (30) days after the successor takes office or such time as may be granted by the court, it is satisfactorily shown to the court by any party that there is a substantial need for continuing or maintaining it and that the successor adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to be heard. (18a)

Incompetency or incapacity of a party

Section 18. Incompetency or incapacity. — If a party becomes incompetent or incapacitated, the court, upon motion with notice, may allow the action to be continued by or against the incompetent or incapacitated person assisted by his legal guardian or guardian ad litem. (19a)

Transfer of interest

Section 19. Transfer of interest. — In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party. (20)

Action and contractual money claims

Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. — When the action is for recovery of money arising from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person. (21a)

Indigent party

Section 21. Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.

Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise provides.

Notice to the Solicitor General

Section 22. Notice to the Solicitor General. — In any action involving the validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, presidential decree, rules or regulations, the court, in its discretion, may require the appearance of the Solicitor General who may be heard in person or a representative duly designated by him. (23a)

Representatives as parties

Representatives are those who act on behalf of another person. The representative should be duly authorized to act as such by a written document such as a special power of attorney (SPA) or a trust agreement. He or she is acting on behalf of a principal (under an SPA) or a beneficiary (under a trust agreement).

The name of the principal or beneficiary should be included in the title of the case, along with the name of the representative. (Section 3)


Permissive joinder of parties

It is also possible to join two or more persons as Plaintiffs or as Defendants, as long as certain requisites are present. Rule 3, Section 6 requires that there should be a question of law or fact that is common to all such plaintiffs or such defendants.

As an example, suppose there is a vehicular collision between a car and a passenger jeepney, and two passengers in the jeepney were injured as a result. The jeepney was also damaged. These two passengers as well as the owner of the damaged jeepney can bring separate actions of damages against the driver of the car. However, since the damages arose out of the same vehicle collision, both passengers along with the owner of the jeepney can bring one case against the driver of the car, There will be permissive joinder of plaintiffs in that case.