Lucman v.
Malawi (Short title) - For failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, Lucman was held as in
GR # 159794 | December 19, 2006
Petition: Petition for review challenging the decision of RTC affirmed by CA
Petitioner: Maclaring M. Lucman, in his capacity as the Manager of the Land Bank of
the Philippines, Marawi City
Respondent: Alimatar Malawi, Abdul-Khayer Pangcoga, Salimatar Sarip, Lomala
Cadar, Aliriba S. Macarambon and Abdul Usman
(Rule 3, Rules on Civil Procedure)
DOCTRINE
Indispensable party is parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final
determination of an action. The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory.
Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court.
FACTS
- The petition for mandamus filed by Malawi et. al before the trial court is
rooted on their allegation that they were deprived of their Internal Revenue
Allotment (IRA) for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1997 and that Lucman
released it to third persons.
- Malawi et. al were all incumbent barangay chairmen of their respective
barangays prior to the 1997 barangay elections but the election and the
subsequent special election failed so they remained in office in a holdover
capacity.
- In the second quarter of 1997, LBP was selected as the government
depository bank for the IRAs of the barangay. Being a new government
depositary bank for the IRA funds, the authorized public officials had to open
new accounts in behalf of their government units from which they could
withdraw the IRAs.
- After the failed elections, Malawi et. al attempted to open their respective
IRA bank accounts but were refused by petitioner because they were
required to show their individual certifications that they will continue serving
as Barangay Chairmen and the requisite Municipal Accountant's Advice
giving the authority to withdraw IRA deposits.
- Malawi et. al were eventually allowed to open accounts except for Cadar and
Usman because the accounts for their barangays were previously opened by
two persons who presented themselves as the duly proclaimed Chairmen.
o However, all were not allowed to withdraw from the opened
accounts, owing to the absence of the Accountant's Advice
- Five (5) other persons presented themselves before LBP as the newly
proclaimed Punong Barangays of the five barangays concerned with each of
them presenting a certification of his election issued by the provincial director
of the DILG-ARMM and another Certification issued by the Local
Government Operations Officer attesting the revocation of the certification
previously issued to malwis group.
o LBP proceeded to release the IRA funds for the 2nd and 3rd
quarters of 1997 to them
- This promptem the filing of a special civil action for Mandamus with
Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to compel Lucman to allow
them to open and maintain deposit accounts covering the IRAs of their
respective barangays and to withdraw therefrom.
default and Malawis grou[ were allowed to present evidence ex parte but his
Motion for Reconsideration of the Order was granted
-
- After failing again to appear, another Order was issued wherein petitioner
was deemed to have waived his right to present evidence and again, the
Order was lifted on petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration but instead of
presenting evidence, he filed a Motion to Dispense or Waive Presentation of
Evidence wherein he represented that the prayers in the complaint had
already been complied with.
- RTC: Commanded Lucman to pay all chairmen, except Malawi who failed to
testify, the IRAs of their respective barangays "even without the Accountant's
Advice."
o Considered Lucman's refusal to present evidence as a "silence"
that equates to an admission of allegations and relied on the
testimonies and certifications adduced that they were occupying
their positions in a holdover capacity.
- CA: Affirmed
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N Mandamus is proper
2. W/N there are indispensable parties which were not impleaded
PROVISIONS
Rule 3
Section 6. Permissive joinder of parties. All persons in whom or against whom any
right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may,
except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as
defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make
such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may
have no interest. (6n)
RULING & RATIO
1. NO
- Although the pleading filed before the lower court was denominated as a
Petition for Mandamus With Prayer For Writ of Preliminary Injunction, the
allegations thereof indicate that it is an action for specific performance,
particularly to compel petitioner to allow withdrawal of funds
- The barangays are the lenders while the bank is the borrower.
- The relationship being contractual in nature, mandamus is therefore not an
available remedy since mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance
of contractual obligations.
Page 1 of 2
2. YES
- Indispensable party is parties-in-interest without whom there can be no final
determination of an action.
- The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Strangers to a case are DISPOSITION
not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
- The IRA funds for which the bank accounts were created belong to the Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are REVERSED and
barangays headed by respondents thus; the barangays are the only lawful SET ASIDE. The Petition for Mandamus filed before the Regional Trial Court is
recipients of these funds so any transaction or claim can be done only ordered DISMISSED.
through the proper authorization from the barangays as juridical entities.
Hence, the barangays are indispensable parties in this case.
- This case was not initiated by the barangays themselves. Neither did the
barangay chairmen file the suit in representation of their respective
barangays. The case in the lower court should have been dismissed.

Page 2 of 2