Quiombing vs CA

GR No. 93010

FACTS:

In a Construction and Service Agreement, petitioner Nicencio Tan Quiombing and a

certain Dante Biscocho, jointly and severally bound themselves to construct a house for
private respondents , spouses Francisco and Manuelita Saligo.

Quiombing and Manuelita Saligo entered into a second written agreement which the
latter acknowledged the completion of the house and undertook to pay the balance of
the contract price. Manuelita then signed a promissory note representing the amount
still due from her and her husband payable to petitioner Quiombing.

Petitioner filed a complaint for the recovery of the amount respondents, spouses Saligo
promised to pay – but had not, despite repeated demands – as the balance of the
contract price for the construction of their house.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint contending that Biscocho was an

indispensable party and therefore should have been included as co-plaintiff.

ISSUE:

WON Biscocho is an indispensable party for the recovery of amounts due to both him
and Quiombing

RULING:

No, Biscocho is not an indispensable party.

Under Sec. 7 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court, an indispensable party is one with
such an interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect their
rights, so that the court cannot proceed without their presence.

Although Biscocho signed the original Construction and Service Agreement, he need
not be included as a co-plaintiff in the complaint filed by the petitioner against the
private respondents. Quiombing, as solidary creditor, can by himself alone enforce
payment of the construction costs by the private respondents as a solidary debtor may
by himself alone be held liable for any possible breach of contract. In either case, the
participation of Biscocho is not at all necessary, much less indispensable.