Lucman v. Malawi (Short title) GR # 159794 | December 19, 2006 Petition: Petition for review challenging the decision of RTC affirmed by CA Petitioner: Maclaring M. Lucman, in his capacity as the Manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines, Marawi City Respondent: Alimatar Malawi, Abdul-Khayer Pangcoga, Salimatar Sarip, Lomala Cadar, Aliriba S. Macarambon and Abdul Usman (Rule 3, Rules on Civil Procedure) DOCTRINE Indispensable party is parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. FACTS The petition petition for mandamus filed filed by Malawi et. al before before the trial court is rooted on their allegation that they were deprived of their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997 and that Lucman released it to third persons. Malawi et. al were were all incumbent barangay chairmen of their respective respective barangays prior to the 1997 barangay elections but the election and the subsequent special election failed so they remained in office in a holdover capacity. In the second quarter quarter of 1997, LBP LBP was selected as the government depository bank for the IRAs of the barangay. Being a new government depositary bank for the IRA funds, the authorized public officials had to open new accounts in behalf of their government units from which they could withdraw the IRAs. After the failed elections, Malawi Malawi et. al attempted to open their their respective respective IRA bank accounts but were refused by petitioner because they were required to show their individual certifications that they will continue serving as Barangay Chairmen and the requisite Municipal Accountant's Advice giving the authority to withdraw IRA deposits. Malawi et. al were were eventually eventually allowed allowed to open accounts accounts except except for Cadar and and Usman because the accounts for their barangays were previously opened by two persons who presented themselves as the duly proclaimed Chairmen. However, all all were not allowed to withdraw from the opened o accounts, owing to the absence of the Accountant's Advice Five (5) other persons presented themselves before LBP as the newly proclaimed Punong Barangays of the five barangays concerned with each of them presenting a certification of his election issued by the provincial director of the DILG-ARMM and another Certification issued by the Local Government Operations Officer attesting the revocation of the certification previously issued to malwi’s group. LBP proceeded proceeded to release the IRA funds for the 2nd 2nd and 3rd o quarters of 1997 to them This promptem promptem the filing of a special special civil action for for Mandamus Mandamus with Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to compel Lucman to allow them to open and maintain deposit accounts covering the IRAs of their respective barangays and to withdraw therefrom.
-
-
-
-
For failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, Lucman was was held as in default and Malawi’s grou[ were allowed to present evidence ex parte but his Motion for Reconsideration of the Order was granted After failing again to appear, another Order Order was issued wherein petitioner was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and again, the Order was lifted on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration but instead of presenting evidence, he filed a Motion to Dispense or Waive Presentation of Evidence wherein he represented that the prayers in the complaint had already been complied with. RTC: RTC: Commanded Lucman to pay all chairmen, except Malawi who failed to testify, the IRAs of their respective barangays "even without the Accountant's Advice." Considered Lucman's refusal refusal to present evidence evidence as a "silence" "silence" o that equates to an admission of allegations and relied on the testimonies and certifications adduced that they were occupying their positions in a holdover capacity. CA: CA: Affirmed
Hence, this petition. ISSUE/S 1. W/N Mandamus is proper 2. W/N there are indispensable indispensable parties parties which which were not impleaded impleaded
PROVISIONS Rule 3 Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. — All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest. (6n) RULING & RATIO 1. NO Although the the pleading pleading filed before the lower court court was denominated as a Petition for Mandamus With Prayer For Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the allegations thereof indicate that it is an action for specific performance, particularly to compel petitioner to allow withdrawal of funds The barangays barangays are the lenders while the bank bank is the borrower. borrower. The relationship relationship being contractual in nature, nature, mandamus mandamus is is therefore therefore not an available remedy since mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance of contractual obligations. Page 1 of 2
2.
YES Indispensable party is parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final determination of an action. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The IRA funds for which the bank accounts were created belong to the barangays headed by respondents thus; the barangays are the only lawful recipients of these funds so any transaction or claim can be done only through the proper authorization from the barangays as juridical entities. Hence, the barangays are indispensable parties in this case. This case was not initiated by the barangays themselves. Neither did the barangay chairmen file the suit in representation of their respective barangays. The case in the lower court should have been dismissed.
DISPOSITION WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Mandamus filed before the Regional Trial Court is ordered DISMISSED.
Page 2 of 2
