CASE 2016-0056: CAMERON GRANVILLE & ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., V. FIDEL 0. CHUA AND FILIDEN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.,  (G.R. 191170, SEPTEMBER 2016, SERENO, CJ.) (SUBJECT/S: REJOINDER OF PARTIES; WHETHER THE SUBSTITUTED PARTY REMAIN AS PARTY OR BE DELETED) (BRIEF TITLE: CAMERON GRANVILLE VS CHUA ET AL.)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 26 August 2009 and Resolution dated 11 February 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 103809 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated 28 December 2007 and 9 April 2008 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Parafiaque City, Branch 258, are REINSTATED.

 

 SO ORDERED”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONER FILED MOTION TO BE JOINED AS PARTY IN LIEU OF METROBANK. RTC GRANTED THE MOTION PROVIDED THAT METROBANK WILL STILL BE A PARTY UNTIL EVIDENCES SHOW THAT IT BE OUT AS A PARTY. RESPONDENT QUESTIONED SUCH RULING AT CA ON GROUND THAT CA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. CA REVERSED RTC ON GROUND THAT THE RTC DECISION WAS A PROVISIONAL JOINDER/SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES WHICH IS AGAINST THE BASIC RULE THAT EVERY ACTION MUST BE PROSECUTED OR DEFENDED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. IS CA CORRECT?

 

NO.

 

THERE WAS NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF RTC. ITS RULING WAS IN ACCORD WITH SECTION 11, RULE 3 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

THE RULE PROVIDES THAT PARTIES MAY BE DROPPED OR ADDED BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON MOTION OF ANY PARTY OR ON THE COURT’S OWN INITIATIVE AT ANY STAGE OF THE ACTION AND ON SUCH TERMS AS ARE JUST.

 

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR ALLOWING PARTIES TO JOIN IN A PROCEEDING WHICH HAS A COMMON QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT CONCERNING THEM?

 

TRIAL CONVENIENCE, I.E. TO SAVE THE PARTIES UNNECESSARY WORK, TROUBLE AND EXPENSE.

 

TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE AND CONVENIENCE, THE RULE ON THE JOINDER OF PARTIES IS CONSTRUED WITH CONSIDERABLE FLEXIBILITY.

 

THE CA ALSO SAID THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER RESPONDENTS’ DEBT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PORTFOLIO OF NONPERFORMING LOANS SOLD TO ARC WHO ASSIGNED IT TO PETITIONER. IS THIS TRUE?

 

NO.

METROBANK BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE FACT OF THE TRANSFER OF INTEREST TO ARC WHICH THEN TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER.

 

THE ADMISSION BY METROBANK SUFFICIENTLY SUPPLIED WHATEVER WAS OMITTED BY THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE ENTIRE PORTFOLIO OF NONPERFORMING LOANS.


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0070-cameron-granville-asset-management-inc

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.