vs.
EDUARDO M. CACAYURAN, Respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
DOCTRINE: Section 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit.
FACTS:
Ruling of the RTC: ruled in favor of Cacayuran, declaring the Subject Loans null and
void. Resolutions passed in a highly irregular manner and thus, ultra vires ; as such, the
Municipality is not bound by the same and Plaza Lot is proscribed from collateralization
given its nature as property for public use.
Land Bank filed Notice of Appeal On the other hand, the Implicated Officers’ appeal was
deemed abandoned and dismissed for their failure to file an appellants’ brief despite
due notice.Hence, only Land Bank’s appeal was given due course by the CA.
Ruling of the CA: RTC’s decision affirmed with modification excluding Vice Mayor
Eslao from any personal liability arising from the Subject Loans. Among others,
Cacayuran had locus standi to file his complaint,and involved public interest of
transcendental importance. Resolutions approving loans were invalidly passed and
Plaza lot in invalid as collateral. Hence procurement is ultra vires. Land Bank filed
instant petition before SC.
Sec. 7, Rule 3 mandates that all indespensable parties are to be joined in a suit
as it is the party whose interest will be affected by the court’ s action and without whom
no final determination of the case can be had. His legal presence is an absolute
necessity. Absence of the indespensable party renders all subsequent actions of the
court null and void for want of jurisdiction to act.
Here, failure to implead any indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal
of the complaint. The proper remedy is to implead them. Cacayuran failed to implead
the Municipality, a real party in interest and an indispensable party that stands to be
directly affected by any resolution. It is the contracting party and the owner of the public
plaza. It stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the case. The decision of
the RTC, affirmed with modification by CA and finally affirmed by SC is not binding upon
Municipality as it was not impleaded as defendant in the case.
Digested by:
Magistrado, Emmanuel B.