Ordonez Case

ORDONEZ CASE
Jurisdiction over the main action
Intervention is not a matter of right
Allowance or disallowance rest on the court
Exceptions
. Intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and

supplemental to the existing litigation. Its purpose is not to obstruct
nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery of trial,
but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain
right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and
be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interests. In this
case, Pulgar does not contest the RTC's dismissal of Civil Case No.
0587-M for lack of jurisdiction, but oddly maintains his intervention by
asking in this appeal a review of the correctness of the subject realty
tax assessment. This recourse, the Court, however, finds to be
improper since the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the main case
necessarily resulted in the dismissal of his intervention (Pulgar vs. RTC
of Mauban, Quezon, GR No. 157583, 09/10/2014).
. Intervention is not a matter of absolute right but may be permitted by

the court when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the
requirements of the statute authorizing intervention. Under our Rules
of Court, what qualifies a person to intervene is his possession of a
legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of
the parties, or an interest against both; or when he is so situated as
to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of
property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof. As regards
the legal interest as qualifying factor, this Court has ruled that such
interest must be of a direct and immediate character so that the
intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the
judgment. The interest must be actual and material, a concern which
is more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire; it
must not be indirect and contingent, indirect and remote, conjectural,
consequential or collateral.
. The Court denied the movant-intervenors to intervene, ruling that the
movant- intervenors’ sentiments, no matter how noble, do not in any
way come within the purview of the concept of “legal interest”
contemplated under the Rules to justify the allowance of intervention,
for failing to show any legal interest of such nature that they will
either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgmene. The
Court stressed that, if every person, not parties to the action but
assert their desire to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution,
were allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily
complicated, expensive, and interminable.
. Time to intervene
. (1) The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before the rendition
of judgment by the trial court (Sec. 2, Rule 18). Intervention after trial
and decision can no longer be permitted (Yau vs. Manila Banking Corp.,
GR 126731, 07/11/2002).
. (2) The RTC of Manila denied the respondents’ motion for intervention
on the ground of the finality of the order of the RTC of Catbalogan,
there being no appeal or any other legal remedy perfected in due
time by either the petitioners or the respondents. Since the dismissal
of the complaint was already final and executory, the RTC of Manila
can no longer entertain a similar action from the same parties. The
bone of contention is not regarding the petitioners’ execution of
waivers of the defense of prescription, but the effect of finality of an
order or judgment on both parties. The petitioners attempted to
justify their failure to file an action to have the orders of the RTC of
Catbalogan annulled by ratiocinating that the respondents precluded
them from doing so when the latter filed their complaint anew with
the RTC of Manila. This is untenable, as it is clear that the
respondents filed the said complaint-in-intervention with the RTC of
Manila more than a year after the case was ordered dismissed by
the RTC of Catbalogan.56 Aside from this, the petitioners offered no
other acceptable excuse on why they did not raise their oppositions
against the orders of the RTC of Catbalogan when they had the
opportunity to do so. Thus, the only logical conclusion is that the
petitioners abandoned their right to waive the defense of prescription
(Caltex [Philippines], Inc. vs. Aguirre, GR No. 170746-47, 03/09/2016).
. REMEDY FOR DENIAL OF INTERVENTION
. 1) The remedy of the aggrieved party is a motion for reconsideration.

Intervention is an interlocutory action or judgment; hence,
unappleable. Mandamus will not lie except in case of grave abuse of
discretion.
ANSWER TO INTERVENTION

Ordonez Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ordonez Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ordonez Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORDONEZ CASE

Jurisdiction over the main action

Intervention is not a matter of right

Allowance or disallowance rest on the court

. Intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and

. Intervention is not a matter of absolute right but may be permitted by

. REMEDY FOR DENIAL OF INTERVENTION

. 1) The remedy of the aggrieved party is a motion for reconsideration.

You might also like