Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7220)
Facts:
In Teodoro Vano v. Hipolito Alo, G.R. No. L-7220, July 30, 1954, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court, resolved a certiorari petition challenging a trial court order refusing to admit a fourth amended complaint.
Petitioner Teodoro Vano, administrator of the estate of the late Jose Vano, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Bohol in September 1947 for recovery of theatrical equipment and unpaid rentals allegedly leased to an entity calling itself APBA Cinematographic Shows, Inc. The record shows that Pedro Dumadag and Esmenio Jumamuy acted as president and general manager, respectively, of the unregistered association; the lease was for P200 per month, equipment was installed in February 1947, and the show house began operation then. Jose Vano later died and petitioner, as his administrator, pursued the cause of action.
After several pleadings, the trial court ordered petitioner to file a fourth amended complaint (order of January 28, 1953). The fourth amended complaint alleged that the APBA association had never been registered and that the officers (Dumadag and Jumamuy) entered into the lease contract in their own names and not in the name of the association, invoking Article 287 of the Code of Commerce as governing the liability of a factor who contracts in his own name.
Respondents opposed admission of the fourth amended complaint on the ground that, under Section 15, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, all the members of the unregistered association should have been impleaded as parties defendant; the trial court agreed and, on September 14, 1953, refused to admit the amended complaint, stating that the association and its members were the "real party in interest&q...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit reversible error in refusing to admit petitioner’s fourth amended complaint for failure to implead the members of the unregistered association?
- Are the members of an unregistered association indispensable or "real parties in interest" whose joinder as defendants is required where officers allegedly contracted in their personal capacity, or may plaintiff sue the officers alone (with defendants able to imp...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)