Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


ERMITA (D) jurat as having duly subscribed the petition before the notary public. In other words, only 20
G.R. No. 166620. April 20, 2010 petitioners effectively instituted the present case
In MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc., we observed that an
FACTS: element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the
July 25, 1987, the National Printing Office (NPO) was formed, during the term of former question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, the court must consider
President Corazon C. Aquino (President Aquino), by virtue of EO 285 which provided, the 1. whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of
creation of the NPO from the merger of the Government Printing Office and the relevant printing the class;
units of the Philippine Information Agency (PIA). 2. the proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total membership of the class; and
October 25, 2004, President Arroyo issued the herein assailed EO 378, amending Sec 6 of EO 285, 3. any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class.
removing the exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over the printing services requirements of In Ibaes v. Roman Catholic Church that where the interests of the plaintiffs and the other members
government agencies and instrumentalities. of the class they seek to represent are diametrically opposed, the class suit will not prosper.
o Pursuant to EO 378, government agencies and instrumentalities are allowed to source their There is here an apparent conflict between petitioners' interests and those of the persons whom they
printing services from the private sector through competitive bidding, subject to the condition claim to represent. Since it cannot be said that petitioners sufficiently represent the interests of the
that the services offered by the private supplier be of superior quality and lower in cost entire class, the instant case cannot be properly treated as a class suit.
compared to what was offered by the NPO. EO 378 also limited NPO's appropriation in the
General Appropriations Act to its income.
Perceiving EO 378 as a threat to their security of tenure as employees of the NPO, petitioners now G.R. No. 153788. November 27, 2009
challenge its constitutionality, contending that:
1. it is beyond the executive powers of President Arroyo to amend or repeal EO 285 issued by FACTS:
former President Aquino when the latter still exercised legislative powers; and September 12, 1998, respondent Karen T. Go filed two complaints, before the RTC for replevin
2. EO 378 violates petitioners' security of tenure, because it paves the way for the gradual and/or sum of money with damages against Navarro. In these complaints, Karen Go prayed that the
abolition of the NPO. RTC issue writs of replevin for the seizure of two (2) motor vehicles in Navarro's possession.
o The second complaint contained essentially the same allegations as the first complain and also
HELD: alleged that Navarro delivered three post-dated checks, each for the amount of P100,000.00,
Before proceeding to resolve the substantive issues, the Court must first delve into a procedural to Karen Go in payment of the agreed rentals; however, the third check was dishonored when
matter. Since petitioners instituted this case as a class suit, the Court, thus, must first determine if the presented for payment
petition indeed qualifies as one. October 12, 1998 and October 14, 1998, the RTC issued writs of replevin for both cases; as a result,
In Board of Optometry v. Colet, we held that "[c]ourts must exercise utmost caution before allowing the Sheriff seized the two vehicles and delivered them to the possession of Karen Go.
a class suit, which is the exception to the requirement of joinder of all indispensable parties. For o In his Answers, Navarro alleged that the two complaints stated no cause of action, since
while no difficulty may arise if the decision secured is favorable to the plaintiffs, a quandary would Karen Go was not a party to the Lease Agreements with Option to Purchase
result if the decision were otherwise as those who were deemed impleaded by their self-appointed May 8, 2000 RTC dismissed the case on the ground that complaints did not state a cause of action
representatives would certainly claim denial of due process." May 26, 2000, Karen Go filed motion for reconsideration.
Sec. 12. Class suit. When the subject matter of the controversy is one of common or general July 26, 2000 RTC issued another order setting aside the order of dismissal.
interest to many persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them o Acting on the presumption that Glenn Go's leasing business is a conjugal property, RTC held
which the court finds to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests that Karen Go had sufficient interest in his leasing business to file the action against Navarro.
of all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to o However, the RTC held that Karen Go should have included her husband, Glenn Go, in the
intervene to protect his individual interest. complaint based on Section 4, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (Rules). Thus, the lower court
From the foregoing definition, the requisites of a class suit are: ordered Karen Go to file a motion for the inclusion of Glenn Go as co-plaintiff.
1. the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons; March 7, 2001, RTC denied Navarro's motion for reconsideration, Navarro filed a petition for
2. the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and certiorari with the CA, essentially contending that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion
3. the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and when it reconsidered the dismissal of the case and directed Karen Go to amend her complaints by
can fully protect the interests of all concerned. including her husband Glenn Go as co-plaintiff.
An action does not become a class suit merely because it is designated as such in the pleadings. o According to Navarro, a complaint which failed to state a cause of action could not be
Whether the suit is or is not a class suit depends upon the attending facts, and the complaint, or other converted into one with a cause of action by mere amendment or supplemental pleading.
pleading initiating the class action should allege the existence of the necessary facts, to wit, the October 16, 2001, CA denied Navarro's petition and affirmed the RTC's order.
existence of a subject matter of common interest, and the existence of a class and the number of May 29, 2002, CA also denied Navarro's motion for reconsideration in its resolution,
persons in the alleged class, in order that the court might be enabled to determine whether the
members of the class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court,
to contrast the number appearing on the record with the number in the class and to determine
whether claimants on record adequately represent the class and the subject matter of general or
common interest.
A perusal of the petition itself would show that of the 67 petitioners who signed the
Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, only 20 petitioners were in fact mentioned in the
Non-joinder of indispensable parties not ground to dismiss action
o As we stated in Macababbad v. Masirag, Rule 3, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that
neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action.
o In Domingo v. Scheer, this Court held that the proper remedy when a party is left out is to
implead the indispensable party at any stage of the action. The court, either motu proprio or
upon the motion of a party, may order the inclusion of the indispensable party or give the
plaintiff opportunity to amend his complaint in order to include indispensable parties. If the
plaintiff to whom the order to include the indispensable party is directed refuses to comply
with the order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or
upon the court's own motion. Only upon unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order to
include or to amend is the action dismissed.


G.R. No. 173192. April 18, 2008.