G.R. No. 203775. August 5, 2014.

*
ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD VICTIMS and JAIME AGUILAR
HERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
ALAY BUHAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,
INC., and WESLIE TING GATCHALIAN, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Parties; Real Party-in-Interest; Under

Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, only natural or juridical
persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action, which
must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.—
Under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3, only natural or juridical persons, or
entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action, which must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. Article 44
of the Civil Code lists the juridical persons with capacity to sue, thus: Art.
44. The following are juridical persons: (1) The State and its political
subdivisions; (2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public
interest or purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as
they have been constituted according to law; (3) Corporations,
partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the
law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of
each shareholder, partner or member.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Capacity to Sue; Section 4, Rule 8 of the
Rules of Court mandates that “[f]acts showing the capacity of a party to sue
or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is
made a party, must be averred.—Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court
mandates that “[f]acts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or
the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the
legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party,
must be averred.” In their petition, it is stated that petitioner Association of
Flood Victims “is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization in the

_______________

* EN BANC.

101
process of formal incorporation, the primary purpose of which is for the
benefit of the common or general interest of many flood victims who are so
numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties,” and that petitioner
Hernandez “is a Tax Payer and the Lead Convenor of the Association of
Flood Victims.” Clearly, petitioner Association of Flood Victims, which is
still in the process of incorporation, cannot be considered a juridical person
or an entity authorized by law, which can be a party to a civil action.
Petitioner Association of Flood Victims is an unincorporated association not
endowed with a distinct personality of its own. An unincorporated
association, in the absence of an enabling law, has no juridical personality
and thus, cannot sue in the name of the association. Such unincorporated
association is not a legal entity distinct from its members. If an association,
like petitioner Association of Flood Victims, has no juridical personality,
then all members of the association must be made parties in the civil action.
Same; Same; Same; Locus Standi; Words and Phrases; Locus standi or
legal standing is defined as: x x x a personal and substantial interest in the
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a
result of the governmental act that is being challenged.—Petitioners have
no locus standi or legal standing. Locus standi or legal standing is defined
as: x x x a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party
has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the governmental
act that is being challenged. The term “interest” means a material interest,
an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist of
the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional questions.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and/or

Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Robert David Buluran, Hector L. Hofilena and Orvin M. Diaz
for petitioners.

102

RESOLUTION
**
CARPIO,  J.:
The Case
This is a Petition for Certiorari and/or Mandamus under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, assailing the Minute Resolution No. 12-0859
dated 2 October 2012 of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). The COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0859,
among others, (1) confirmed the recomputation of the allocation of
seats of the Party-List System of Representation in the House of
Representatives in the 10 May 2010 automated national and local
elections, (2) proclaimed Alay Buhay Community Development
Foundation, Inc. (Alay-Buhay) Party-List as a winning party list
group in the 10 May 2010 elections, and (3) declared the first
nominee [Weslie T. Gatchalian] of Alay Buhay Party-List as its
Party-List Representative in the House of Representatives.
The Facts
On 28 August 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed COMELEC
Resolution SPP 10-013, dated 11 October 2011, cancelling the
certificate of registration of the Alliance of Barangay Concerns
(ABC) Party-List which won in the party list elections in the 2010
national elections. The disqualification of the ABC Party-List
resulted in the recomputation of the party list allocations in the
House of Representatives, in which the COMELEC followed the
formula outlined in the case of Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) v. Commission on
Elections.1

_______________
** Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 1743 dated 4 August 2014; Certified
that C.J. Sereno left her vote concurring with this ponencia.
1 604 Phil. 131; 595 SCRA 477 (2009) (Decision) and 609 Phil. 751; 592 SCRA
294 (2009) (Resolution).

103

The COMELEC then issued Minute Resolution No. 12-0859, in

which it resolved:
1. TO GRANT the September 14, 2012 Urgent Motion for
Proclamation of Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation,
Inc. (Alay Buhay) Party-List;
2. TO DENY the September 20, 2012 Very Very Urgent Ex
Parte Motion of Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens of the
Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizens) Party-List;
3. TO NOTE the September 24, 2012 Opposition to Senior
Citizens Party-List’s “Very Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion” of Alay
Buhay Community Development Foundation, Inc. (Alay Buhay)
Party-List;
 4. TO CONFIRM the herein RECOMPUTATION OF THE
ALLOCATION OF SEATS of the Party-List System of
Representation in the House of Representatives in the May 10, 2010
Automated National and Local Elections;
5. TO PROCLAIM Alay Buhay Community Development
Foundation, Inc. (Alay Buhay) Party-List as a winning party list
group in the Party-List System of Representation in the House of
Representatives in the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local
Elections; and
6. TO DECLARE the First (1st) NOMINEE of Alay Buhay
Community Development Foundation, Inc. (Alay Buhay) Party-List,
as the FIRST (1st) SITTING REPRESENTATIVE in the Party-List
System of Representation in the House of Representatives in
accordance with the Order of Nominees per the List appearing in its
March 17, 2010 Certificate of Nomination.2
On 25 October 2012, petitioners Association of Flood Victims
and Jaime Aguilar Hernandez (Hernandez) filed with this Court a
special civil action for certiorari and/or mandamus under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court. Petitioners assert

_______________
2 Rollo, pp. 71-72.

104

that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it

issued Minute Resolution No. 12-0859. Furthermore, petitioners
pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel publication
of the COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0859.
The Issues
The issues raised in this case are: (1) whether the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Minute Resolution
No. 12-0859, and (2) whether the COMELEC may be compelled
through mandamus to publish Minute Resolution No. 12-0859.
The Ruling of the Court
We dismiss the petition.
Petitioners do not have legal capacity to sue. Sections 1 and 2,
Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure read:

SECTION 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant.—Only

natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a
civil action. The term “plaintiff” may refer to the claiming party, the
counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) -party
plaintiff. The term “defendant” may refer to the original defending party, the
defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) -
party defendant.
SECTION 2. Parties-in-interest.—A real party-in-interest is the party
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or
these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party-in-interest.

Under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 3, only natural or juridical

persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil

105

action, which must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real

party-in-interest. Article 44 of the Civil Code lists the juridical
persons with capacity to sue, thus:

Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:

(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or
purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have
been constituted according to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or
purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and
distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member.
(Emphasis supplied)

Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court mandates that “[f]acts

showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of
a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal
existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party,
must be averred.”
In their petition, it is stated that petitioner Association of Flood
Victims “is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization in the process
of formal incorporation, the primary purpose of which is for the
benefit of the common or general interest of many flood victims
who are so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties,”
and that petitioner Hernandez “is a Tax Payer and the Lead
Convenor of the Association of Flood Victims.”3 Clearly, petitioner
Association of Flood Victims, which is still in the process of
incorporation, cannot be considered a juridical person or an entity
authorized by law, which can be a party to a civil action.4
_______________
3 Id., at p. 12. (Emphasis supplied)
4 In the case of Anti-Chinese League v. Felix [77 Phil. 1012 (1947)], the Court held
that petitioner, which is a civic organization or association representing a group of
Filipino citizens, but does not

106

Petitioner Association of Flood Victims is an unincorporated

association not endowed with a distinct personality of its own. An
unincorporated association, in the absence of an enabling law, has no
juridical personality and thus, cannot sue in the name of the
association.5 Such unincorporated association is not a legal entity
distinct from its members. If an association, like petitioner
Association of Flood Victims, has no juridical personality, then all
members of the association must be made parties in the civil action.6
In this case, other than his bare allegation that he is the lead
convenor of the Association of Flood Victims, petitioner Hernandez
showed no proof that he was authorized by said association. Aside
from petitioner Hernandez, no other member was made signatory to
the petition. Only petitioner Hernandez signed the Verification and
Sworn Certification Against Forum Shopping,7 stating that he
caused the preparation of the petition. There was no accompanying
document showing that the other members of the Association of
Flood Victims authorized petitioner Hernandez to represent them
and the association in the petition.

_______________
constitute a juridical person or entity, cannot be a party in the naturalization
proceeding nor institute the action for mandamus since only natural or juridical
persons may be parties in either civil actions or special proceedings.
5 Although an entity without juridical personality cannot sue under the name by
which it is commonly known, such entity may be sued under certain circumstances.
This is allowed under Section 15, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which
provides that:
SECTION 15. Entity without juridical personality as defendant.—When two or
more persons not organized as an entity with juridical personality enter into a
transaction, they may be sued under the name by which they are generally or
commonly known.
In the answer of such defendant, the names and addresses of the persons
composing said entity must be revealed.
6 Feria & Noche, M.C., Civil Procedure Annotated, Vol. I, p. 222 (2001).
7 Rollo, p. 44.
 107

In Dueñas v. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association,8 the

Court held that the Santos Subdivision Homeowners Association
(SSHA), which was an unincorporated association, lacks capacity to
sue in its own name, and that the members of the association cannot
represent the association without valid authority, thus:

There is merit in petitioner’s contention. Under Section 1, Rule 3 of the

Revised Rules of Court, only natural or juridical persons or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Article 44 of the Civil
Code enumerates the various classes of juridical persons. Under said
Article, an association is considered a juridical person if the law grants it a
personality separate and distinct from that of its members. The records of
the present case are bare of any showing by SSHA that it is an association
duly organized under Philippine law. It was thus error for the HLURB-NCR
Office to give due course to the complaint in HLURB Case No. REM-
070297-9821, given SSHA’s lack of capacity to sue in its own name. Nor
was it proper for said agency to treat the complaint as a suit by all the
parties who signed and verified the complaint. The members cannot
represent their association in any suit without valid and legal authority.
Neither can their signatures confer on the association any legal capacity to
sue. Nor will the fact that SSHA belongs to the Federation of Valenzuela
Homeowners Association, Inc., suffice to endow SSHA with the personality
and capacity to sue. Mere allegations of membership in a federation are
insufficient and inconsequential. The federation itself has a separate
juridical personality and was not impleaded as a party in HLURB Case No.
REM-070297-9821 nor in this case. Neither was it shown that the federation
was authorized to represent SSHA. Facts showing the capacity of a party to
sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of
persons that is made a party, must be averred. Hence,

_______________
8 G.R. No. 149417, 4 June 2001, 431 SCRA 76.

108

for failing to show that it is a juridical entity, endowed by law with capacity
to bring suits in its own name, SSHA is devoid of any legal capacity,
whatsoever, to institute any action.9
 More so in this case where there is no showing that petitioner
Hernandez is validly authorized to represent petitioner Association
of Flood Victims.
Since petitioner Association of Flood Victims has no legal
capacity to sue, petitioner Hernandez, who is filing this petition as a
representative of the Association of Flood Victims, is likewise
devoid of legal personality to bring an action in court. Neither can
petitioner Hernandez sue as a taxpayer because he failed to show
that there was illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation10 or
that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid
or unconstitutional law.11
Besides, petitioners have no locus standi or legal standing. Locus
standi or legal standing is defined as:

x x x a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party
has sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a result of the governmental
act that is being challenged. The term “interest” means a material interest,
an interest in issue affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. The gist of
the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of is-

_______________
Id., at pp. 86-87.
9
10 Francisco, Jr. v. Hon. Fernando, 537 Phil. 391; 507 SCRA 173 (2006).
11 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, 17 April 2013, 696 SCRA
861.

109

sues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult

constitutional questions.12

In this case, petitioners failed to allege personal or substantial

interest in the questioned governmental act which is the issuance of
COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0859, which confirmed the
recomputation of the allocation of seats of the Party-List System of
Representation in the House of Representatives in the 10 May 2010
Automated National and Local Elections. Petitioner Association of
Flood Victims is not even a party list candidate in the 10 May
2010 elections, and thus, could not have been directly affected by
COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 12-0859.
 In view of our holding that petitioners do not have legal capacity
to sue and have no standing to file the present petition, we shall no
longer discuss the issues raised in this petition.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin,

Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen,
JJ., concur.
Sereno, CJ., On Leave.
Del Castillo, J., No part.

Petition dismissed.

_______________
12 Integrated Bar of the Phils. v. Hon. Zamora, 392 Phil. 618, 632-633; 338
SCRA 81, 100 (2000).

110

Notes.—University of the Philippines (UP) is a juridical

personality separate and distinct from the government and has the
capacity to sue and be sued; it cannot evade execution, and its funds
may be subject to garnishment or levy; however, before execution
may be had, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first
be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA). (Lockheed Detective
and Watchman Agency, Inc. vs. University of the Philippines, 670
SCRA 206 [2012])
Locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in a court of
justice on a given question. (Advocates for Truth in Lending, Inc. vs.
Bangko Sentral Monetary Board, 688 SCRA 530 [2013])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.