7/25/2019 CASE 3 COMMISIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO Vs. HERBERT MARKUS EMIL SCHEER

1/1

GR No. 154745 January 29, 2004

COMMISIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO

Vs.

HERER! MAR"#S EMI$ SCHEER

Ca%%&'o Sr., J.

(AC!S)

Respondent was granted a permanent residence status card by the

Bureau of Immigration and deportation. The BID received information that

Scheer was wanted by the German Federal olice that a warrant of arrest had

been issued against him. The BID obtained custody of Scheer fordeportation proceeding. Scheer has filed a petition for certiorari! "uestioning

the legal standing of the immigration commissioner. #e contends that the

commissioner has no authority to decide whether an alien may stay or not.

The Regional Trial $ourt rendered a %udgment annulling the summary

deportation proceedings period. Domingo! the commissioner of the

immigration contends that the %udgment is void because the board of

commissioners were not impleaded in the complaint filed.

ISS#E)

&hether or not the Board of $ommissioners is an indispensable party.

HE$D)

The respondent was arrested and detained on the basis of the

Summary Deportation 'rder of the B'$. The petitioner caused the arrest of

the respondent in obedience to the said Deportation 'rder. Thus! the B'$ is

an indispensable party. Section ( of Rule ) re"uires indispensable parties to

be %oined as plaintiffs and defendants. The %oinder of indispensable parties ismandatory. &ithout the presence of indispensable parties to the suit! the

%udgment of the court cannot attain real finality. #owever! the non %oinder of

indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. arties

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 %ust.

DIS*OSI!ION)

In light of all the foregoing the petition is denied. The decision of the

$ourt of *ppeals is affirmed.