G.R. No. L-34052. March 13, 1972.
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, PERSONNEL OFFICER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE CASHIER, FINANCE SCHOOL DIVISION, and LILIA T. AREVALO, petitioners, vs. HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ARSENIO F. SOLIDUM and GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, as Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals (Special 5th Division), and ALBERTO S. FERRER, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Alberto S. Ferrer initiated an action to enjoin the Secretary of Education from appointing Lilia T. Arevalo to the position of Auditor II in the Bureau of Public Schools. The injunction was not granted in time, and Arevalo was appointed. Ferrer subsequently amended his complaint, making Arevalo an additional defendant and challenging the validity of her appointment, which had been approved by the Executive Secretary and the Commissioner of Civil Service. The trial court ruled against Ferrer. On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted the non-inclusion of the Executive Secretary and the Commissioner of Civil Service as parties. It held them to be indispensable parties, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the case to allow Ferrer to implead them, failing which the case would be dismissed.
The petitioners, represented by the Solicitor General, appealed this resolution. They argued that the two officials were not indispensable parties. In support, the Solicitor General submitted affidavits from the Executive Secretary and the Commissioner of Civil Service stating they adopted the defenses already raised by the petitioners and had no separate evidence to present. Ferrer, in response, submitted the case for resolution based on these affidavits.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Executive Secretary and the Commissioner of Civil Service are indispensable parties to the action, warranting a remand of the case to the trial court.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s resolution and ordered the case returned for proceedings on the merits. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the action and the test for an indispensable party under the Rules of Court.
The Court clarified that Ferrer’s action, seeking to oust Arevalo from her appointed position, had effectively transformed into a quo warranto proceeding. In such a proceeding, the controversy is exclusively between the claimant to the office and the alleged usurper. The test for an indispensable party is whether a final determination of the action can be had in their absence. Here, a final determination could be made without the Executive Secretary and the Commissioner of Civil Service. The core issue is the right to the office between Ferrer and Arevalo. A judgment ousting Arevalo would be binding on the appointing and approving authorities as officers of the state, and they would not be required to take any affirmative action under such a judgment.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that these officials were indispensable, the Court of Appeals should not have remanded the case. Their joinder was unnecessary for a resolution on the merits, as evidenced by their affidavits adopting the existing defenses and waiving the presentation of additional evidence. Remanding the case would serve no practical purpose and would only cause undue delay, especially when their inclusion would not prejudice Ferrer. The proper course was for the appellate court to proceed with the appeal based on the complete record before it.