REMEDIAL LAW | Lotte Phil. Co. vs. Dela Cruz G.R. No. 166302, July 28 2005

Lotte Phil. Co. vs. Dela Cruz 

G.R. No. 166302, July 28 2005


FACTS Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. (Lotte) contracted 7J Maintenance and Janitorial Services (7J) for manpower, including petitioners who worked as repackers and sealers. After Lotte terminated its contract with 7J, the workers were no longer called back to work. They then filed a labor complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, backwages, and benefits. Labor Arbiter ruled that 7J was the employer and ordered 7J to reinstate the workers with backwages. The NLRC affirmed, holding 7J solely liable. Petitioners contested the decision, arguing that Lotte was their true employer since 7J was a mere labor-only contractor. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC’s decision, holding that Lotte was the real employer. Lotte filed a petition for review, arguing that 7J was an indispensable party that had not been impleaded. Whether the petition should have been dismissed for failing to implead 7J as an indispensable party.



RULING No. non-joinder of an indispensable party does not automatically result in the dismissal of the case. The proper remedy is for the court to order the inclusion of the indispensable party. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case, ruling that 7J is an indispensable party. Non-joinder of 7J deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction over the party, as 7J would be directly affected by any decision on the matter, particularly given that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC held 7J solely liable.


The Court emphasized that the joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory under Section 3, Rule 46, in relation to Section 5, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Without the inclusion of 7J, the proceedings cannot lead to a final determination of the case. 







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BALA V. MARTINEZ, 181 SCRA 459