Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Pamplona Plantation Co.

vs Tinghil
Rules applied:
Section 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties. Parties in interest
without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined
either as plaintiffs or defendants.
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Neither misjoinder nor nonjoinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or
added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any
stage the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined
party may be severed and proceeded with separately.

Facts:
Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc.(Pamplona for brevity) is engaged in the
operation of coconut and sugar plantation in Hacienda Pamplona, Negros
Oriental. While, Pamplona Plantation Leisure Company (Leisure for brevity) was
established for the purpose of rendering entertainment and leisure facilities and
services.
Tinghil and his other co-respondents are the members of union which
Hacienda Pamplona hired during harvest season of the coconut and sugar cane.
Thereafter, the said union conducted a meeting. A certain Luis Bondoc,
manager of Pamplona, upon learning that meeting of union was held, did not
allow the respondents work anymore at the plantation.
Respondents filed a complaint against Pamplona before the NLRC for
unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and other claims.
Meanwhile before the judgment of the NLRC, Tinghil amended the
complaint to implead Pamplona Plantation Leisure Co..
The NLRC however ruled that only Tinghil may be considered as a real
party and his other co-respondents failed to implead Pamplona Plantation Leisure
Co. an indispensable party.
When the case was appealed in the CA after the denial of MR of the
respondents, the former ruled that the dismissal by Pamplona to respondents is
illegal.

Issue:
Whether or not the NLRC decision to dismiss the complaint for failure of
the petitioners Tingil to implead Pamplona as respondent was valid?
Ruling:
The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal
of an action. At any stage of a judicial proceeding and/or at such times as are
just, parties may be added on the motion of a party or on the initiative of the

tribunal concerned. If the plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party


despite the order of the court, that court may dismiss the complaint for the
plaintiffs failure to comply with the order. The remedy is to implead the nonparty claimed to be indispensable. In this case, the NLRC did not require
respondents to implead the Pamplona Plantation Leisure Corporation as
respondent; instead, the Commission summarily dismissed the Complaints.
In any event, there is no need to implead the leisure corporation because,
insofar as respondents are concerned, the leisure corporation and petitionercompany are one and the same entity.