NECESSARY PARTIES UNDER RULE 3 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT
(With references to the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

1. Introduction

Under Philippine civil procedure, parties to a civil action are governed primarily by Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Parties are classified as indispensable, necessary, proper, or representatives, among others. This discussion focuses specifically on necessary parties, their legal definition, distinctions from other classes of parties, and the procedural implications of their non-joinder or misjoinder.

2. Definition and Nature of a Necessary Party

2.1. Statutory Definition

A necessary party is defined under Section 8, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (as amended) as:

“A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded among those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. A necessary party shall be joined whenever possible.”

In other words, a necessary party is someone whose participation in the lawsuit is important to ensure that the court can grant complete relief to those who are already parties, or to avoid multiple suits or inconsistent judgments. However, unlike an indispensable party, the absence of a necessary party does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The court may still render a decision among the parties who are properly before it, but such resolution might not fully settle all related controversies or might lead to further litigation.

2.2. Distinction from Indispensable Parties

Indispensable Party (Section 7, Rule 3):
An indispensable party is one without whom no final determination can be had of an action. Their legal presence is an absolute necessity, so much so that the court cannot validly proceed without them. If an indispensable party is not impleaded, any judgment rendered is void.
Necessary Party (Section 8, Rule 3):
A necessary party is not absolutely required for the court to acquire jurisdiction, but their presence is important for a thorough and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. Failure to join a necessary party does not invalidate the judgment per se, but may result in incomplete relief or further litigation.

Thus, the key difference is that the non-inclusion of an indispensable party affects the validity of the judgment (the court lacks jurisdiction to fully decide the controversy), whereas the non-inclusion of a necessary party merely risks an incomplete resolution but does not void the decision with respect to the existing parties.

3. Rationale Behind Joining a Necessary Party

Complete Relief:
Joinder ensures that the relief granted by the court will be effective and final among the parties already impleaded.
Prevention of Multiple Suits:
Including necessary parties helps avoid repetitive litigation and conflicting decisions arising from the same facts or issues.
Protection of Parties’ Interests:
A necessary party’s interests might be significantly affected by the outcome of the case, even if they are not strictly indispensable. Their presence allows them to assert their rights or defenses.

4. Effect of Non-Joinder or Misjoinder

4.1. General Rule: Non-Joinder or Misjoinder Not a Ground for Dismissal

Under Section 11, Rule 3, non-joinder or misjoinder of parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. This marked a shift away from older, more technical procedural rules. Instead, the court may order the inclusion of, or the dropping of, parties on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.

4.2. Consequence of Failing to Implead a Necessary Party

Although non-joinder of a necessary party is not automatic cause for dismissal, the Rules direct the court to take appropriate measures if it determines at any time that there is a necessary party who has not been joined. The court may:

Order the Plaintiff to Implead the Necessary Party:
The court may issue an order requiring the joinder of the necessary party.
Proceed Without the Necessary Party if Joinder is Not Feasible:
If joinder is impossible (e.g., the party is outside the court’s jurisdiction and cannot be served with summons), the court may proceed with the case but the resulting judgment may not bind the interests of the absent party.
Dismiss the Action if Plaintiff Refuses to Comply:
If the plaintiff, after being directed by the court to include a necessary party, unreasonably refuses to do so, the court may dismiss the case. This is rooted in the principle that the plaintiff has the duty to bring before the court all persons who are necessary for a complete resolution of the dispute.

4.3. Joinder Procedure

To implead a necessary party, the plaintiff or other parties may file a motion to implead, specifically identifying the party(ies) and explaining why their inclusion is necessary. The court then issues an order. If summons has to be served, standard rules on service of summons apply.

5. Illustrative Jurisprudence

Philippine courts have consistently recognized the importance of necessary parties in ensuring a just and complete adjudication. While the specific case names and citations may vary, the Supreme Court has made the following key pronouncements:

Distinction Between Indispensable and Necessary Parties:
The Court has emphasized that failure to join an indispensable party is fatal to the judgment, whereas failure to join a necessary party merely makes the adjudication less than fully effective but does not nullify it.
Duty of the Court to Order Joinder:
The Court has underscored that when a necessary party is absent, the trial court must require their joinder if feasible, in line with its duty to avoid multiplicity of suits and contradictory judgments.
Effect on Finality of Judgments:
A decision rendered without a necessary party’s participation generally binds only those who were actually parties to the case. It leaves open the possibility that the absent party could later file a separate suit to assert their interests.

6. Practical Considerations

Early Case Assessment:
Lawyers should identify at the outset who the necessary and/or indispensable parties are. Proper joinder from the beginning prevents delays, procedural complications, and potential dismissal orders.
Court’s Involvement:
Courts are duty-bound to ensure the presence of all necessary parties. Thus, if the judge discerns from the pleadings and the evidence that a potentially affected party is missing, the judge must direct their inclusion.
Protection of Substantive Rights:
Because necessary parties often have significant interests at stake, ensuring their participation not only avoids future suits but also upholds fairness and due process.
Strategic Implications:
In some instances, the choice to implead or not to implead a necessary party can affect settlement negotiations, the scope of discovery, and the overall direction of the litigation.

7. Summary of Key Points

Who is a Necessary Party?
One “who is not indispensable but ought to be joined for a complete relief among the parties or for a final settlement of the issue.”
Why Join a Necessary Party?
To ensure complete relief, avoid inconsistent rulings, and fully protect the parties’ rights and interests.
Effect of Non-Joinder:
- Non-joinder or misjoinder is not a ground for dismissal (Sec. 11, Rule 3).
- The court may order joinder or proceed without the missing party if joinder is infeasible.
- If the plaintiff refuses to comply with a lawful order to implead, the case may be dismissed.
Difference from Indispensable Parties:
- An indispensable party is one whose absence renders any judgment void and deprives the court of the authority to act fully.
- A necessary party’s absence does not necessarily void the judgment but may result in an incomplete resolution.

8. Conclusion

The concept of necessary parties under Philippine civil procedure emphasizes the importance of bringing before the court those persons whose presence is essential for the complete and final resolution of a dispute, but whose absence does not strip the court of jurisdiction. While they are distinct from indispensable parties, necessary parties must still be joined whenever feasible to avoid piecemeal litigation, protect all affected interests, and ensure more comprehensive and equitable adjudications.

By carefully identifying and impleading necessary parties from the outset, litigants and courts together uphold the principles of fairness, efficiency, and completeness that underpin the Philippine judicial system.