Quiombing vs. Court of Appeals

Creditor (P) vs. Debtor (D)
GR 93010, 189 SCRA 325

Summary: Spouses Saligo (D) contended that the other solidary creditor must be included as co-plaintiff being an indispensable party to the claim.

Rule of Law: Either one of the solidary creditors my file a claim against the debtor.

Facts: Spouses Saligo (D) contracted Quiombing (P) and his co-creditor Bischoco to construct a house for them. The Construction and Service Agreement between the parties stated that the creditors Quiombing (P) and Bischoco "jointly and severally" bound themselves to construct a house for the debtors. Upon completion, Quiombing (P) was paid partially, but was unable to collect the balance after repeated demands. Quiombing (P) alone filed for recovery of the balance plus charges and interests.

Issues: (1) May one of the two solidary creditors sue by himself alone for the recovery of amounts due to both of them without joining the other creditor as a co-plaintiff?

(2) In such a case, is the defendant entitled to the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of the second creditor as an indispensable part? (3) More to the point, is the second solidary creditor an indispensable party?

Ruling: Yes. The question of who should sue the private respondents was a personal issue between creditors Quiombing and Biscocho. It did not matter who as between them filed the complaint because the private respondents were liable to either of the two as a solidary creditor for the full amount of the debt. Full satisfaction of a judgment obtained against them by Quiombing would discharge their obligation to Biscocho, and vice versa; hence, it was not necessary for both creditors Quiombing and Biscocho to file the complaint. Inclusion of Biscocho as a co-plaintiff when Quiombing was competent to sue by himself alone, would be a useless formality.

Necessary parties are those whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy, but whose interests are so far separable that a final decree can be made in their absence without affecting them. (Necessary parties are now called proper parties.)
—Wyoga Gas and Oil Corp. v. Schrack, I Fed. Rules Service, 292.

Where the obligation of the parties is solidary, either one of the parties is indispensable, and the other is not even necessary (now proper) because complete relief may be obtained from either.
—Feria, Civil Procedure, 1969, p. 153.

A joint obligation is one in which each of the debtors is liable only for a proportionate part of the debt, and each creditor is entitled only to a proportionate part of the credit.

A solidary obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation.

Hence, in the former, each creditor can recover only his share of the obligation, and each debtor can be made to pay only his part; whereas, in the latter, each creditor may enforce the entire obligation, and each debtor may be obliged to pay it in full.

—Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV. 1985, p. 218.