Case Digest (G.R. No. 93010)
Facts:
Nicencio Tan Quiombing and Dante Biscocho (First Party) executed a Construction and Service Agreement with Sps. Francisco and Manuelita A. Saligo on August 30, 1983 for P137,940; a second agreement was signed October 10, 1984 and Manuelita signed a promissory note for P125,363.50 on November 19, 1984 payable to Quiombing. Quiombing filed a complaint on October 9, 1986 for recovery; the defendants moved to dismiss on February 4, 1987 for non-joinder of Biscocho, the trial court dismissed without prejudice to amend, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on March 27, 1990.
Issues:
- May one of two solidary creditors sue alone for the recovery of the whole obligation?
- Is a defendant entitled to dismissal of the complaint for non-joinder of the other solidary creditor as an indispensable party?
- Is the co-creditor Dante Biscocho an indispensable party to Quiombing’s suit?
Ruling:
The Court GRANTED the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals' decision dated March 27, 1990, and directed the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo to reinstate Civil Case No. 913-A; costs were taxed against the private respondents. The Court held that Quiombing could sue alone and that Biscocho was not an indispensable party.
Ratio:
The Court relied on the doctrine of active solidarity, under which each solidary creditor may demand and enforce the whole obligation, so the participation of the other creditor is unnecessary to decide the action between the suing creditor and the debtors. The Court applied Article 1212 and Article 1214 of the Civil Code and Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, observing that possible defenses by the debtors do not render a co-creditor indispensable because any recourse or adjustment between co-creditors affects their rights only and not the debtors'.
Doctrine:
- Active solidarity permits any one solidary creditor to enforce the entire obligation against the debtor.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)