Domingo v.
Scheer (Short title)
GR # 154745| January 29, 2004
Petition: Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Decision of CA
Petitioner: Commissioner Andrea D. Domingo, Bureau of Immigration
Respondent: Herbert Markus Emil Scheer
(Rule 3, Rules on Civil Procedure)
DOCTRINE
The joinder of indispensable parties is mandatory. Without the presence of
indispensable parties to the suit, the judgment of the court cannot attain real finality.
Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court. The
absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null
and void.
FACTS
- Scheer, a native of Germany was granted his application for permanent
resident status by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) through
an Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigration Certificate of Residence
- Subsequently, Vice Consul Jutta Hippelein informed the Philippine
Ambassador to Bonn, Germany through a letter that the respondent had
police records and financial liabilities in Germany.
- DFA received from the German Embassy in Manila a Note Verbale informing
that Scheer was wanted by the German Federal Police and that a warrant of
arrest had been issued and that an official document requesting him to turn
over his German passport to the Embassy.
- BOC: issued a Summary Deportation Order.
o Relied on the correspondence from the German Vice Consul that it
was unlikely that the German Embassy will issue a new passport;
on the warrant of arrest issued by the District Court of Germany for
insurance fraud; and on the alleged illegal activities in Palawan.
- Scheer went to BID Commissioner Verceles who allowed him to remain in
the Philippines and giving time to secure clearance and passport.
- Scheer then filed on an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Summary
Deportation Order but the BOC did not resolve motion. He was neither
arrested nor deported.
- Subsequently, the District Court of Straubing rendered a Decision dismissing
the criminal case. The German Embassy then issued a temporary passport.
- Scheer informed Commissioner Verceles that his passport had been
renewed and reiterated his request for the cancellation of the Summary
Deportation Order and the restoration of his permanent resident status.
- The German Embassy then issued to the respondent a regular passport.
- The BOC still failed to resolve the Urgent Motion. Scheer remained in the
Philippines and maintained his business in Palawan. DOLE approved his
application for Alien Employment Registration Certificate as manager of the
Bavaria Restaurant in Puerto Princesa City.
- Immigration Commissioner Andrea T. Domingo then assumed office.
o Wrote the German Embassy and inquired if Scheer was wanted by
the German police to which the former replied in the negative.
- At about midnight on June 6, 2002, Marine operatives and BID agents
apprehended Scheer in his residence on the order of Domingo.
- Scheer applied for bail to the BID and his counsel filed with the Court of
Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for
temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the
petitioner from proceeding with the respondents deportation.
o That the arrest and detention were premature, unjust, wrongful,
illegal, unconstitutional, effected without sufficient cause and
without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
o That he was a fully documented alien, a permanent resident and a
law-abiding citizen.
- The BOC ruled that the Summary Deportation Order had become final and
executory after the lapse of one year and that it was not competent to
reverse the Order citing jurisprudence.
- Scheer then was able to procure a letter from NBI in Puerto Princesa City
certifying that he had no pending criminal record and Puerto Princesa City
PNP also issued a certification that the respondent had no pending criminal
or derogatory records in the said office.
- CA: Issued a status quo order restraining the deportation.
- BOC: Denied MR and Bail application of Scheer.
- CA: Rendered a Decision granting the petition for certiorari and prohibition
and permanently enjoining the deportation
o German Embassys subsequent issuance of passport before the
BOCs issuance of its Omnibus Resolution had mooted the
Summary Deportation Order, as well as the arrest and detention of
the respondent.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S
1. W/N BOC is an indispensable party
2. W/N the Non-joinder of an indispensable party is a ground for dismissal
PROVISIONS
Rule 3
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.
RULING & RATIO
1. YES
- Domingos contention that the BOC was an indispensable party to the
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Court of Appeals is
proper.
o The arrest and detention was on the basis of the Summary
Deportation Order
o The powers and duties of the BOC may not be exercised by the
individual members of the Commission.
- Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires indispensable parties to be
joined as plaintiffs or defendants. The joinder of indispensable parties is
mandatory. Without the presence of indispensable parties to the suit, the
judgment of the court cannot attain real finality.
Page 1 of 2
 - Strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court.
The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the
court null and void.
- Lack of authority to act not only of the absent party but also as to those
present. The responsibility of impleading all the indispensable parties rests
on the petitioner/plaintiff.
2. NO
- Parties may be added by order of the court on motion of the party or on its
own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just.
- If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the
order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the
petitioner/plaintiffs failure to comply therefor.
- The remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable.

DISPOSITION
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2