Misjoinder & Non-Joinder of Parties

A party is misjoined when he is made a party to the action although he should not be impleaded. A party is not joined when he is supposed to be joined but is not impleaded in the action.

Under the rules, neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just (Sec. 11, Rule 3). Misjoinder of parties does not involve questions of jurisdiction and not a ground for dismissal (Republic v. Herbieto).

Even if neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of the action, the failure to obey the order of the court to drop or add a party is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint under Sec. 3, Rule 17.
The rule does not comprehend whimsical and irrational dropping or adding of parties in a complaint. What it really contemplates is erroneous or mistaken non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. No one is free to join anybody in a complaint in court only to drop him unceremoniously later at the option of the plaintiff. The rule presupposes that the original inclusion had been made in the honest conviction that it was proper and the subsequent dropping is requested because it has turned out that such inclusion was a mistake. And this is the reason why the rule ordains that the dropping is "on such terms as are just." (Lim Tan Hu vs. Ramolete).

In instances of non-joinder of indispensable parties, the proper remedy is to implead them and not to dismiss the case. The non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a ground for the dismissal of an action (Divinagracia v. Parilla).