Case #27 Rule 15-19 The Office of the Ombudsman found basis to proceed with the

SPOUSES FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, JR. AND AMPARO O. administrative case against the impleaded provincial officials
DE GUZMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. CESAR OCHOA AND of Samar. In his counter-affidavit, Sison vehemently denied
SYLVIA A. OCHOA, REPRESENTED BY ARACELI S. the accusations and asserted that his function is limited to the
AZORES, AS THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS. issuance of a certification that an appropriation for the
[G.R. No. 169292, April 13 : 2011] requisition exists, that the corresponding amount has been
Doctrine: An order denying a motion to dismiss is an obligated, and that funds are available. He averred that he
interlocutory order which neither terminates the case never participated in the alleged irregularities as shown in the
nor finally disposes of it, as it leaves something to be minutes and attendance sheet of the bidding and that not one
done by the court before the case is finally decided on of the documentary evidences so far attached in the letter-
the merits. As such, the general rule is that the denial complaint bore his signature.
of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a The Office of the Ombudsman rendered a Decision, finding
special civil action for certiorari which is a remedy Sison and several other local officials of the Province of Samar
designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct
of judgment. prejudicial to the best interest of the service and dismissing
Therefore, an order denying a motion to dismiss may him from service. Aggrieved, Sison appealed to the CA via a
only be reviewed in the ordinary course of law by an Petition for Review under Rule 43.
appeal from the judgment after trial. The ordinary
procedure to be followed in such cases is to file an CA rendered a decision reversing and setting aside the
answer, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, decision of the Office of the Ombudsman against Sison.
reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment
FACTS: Respondent spouses Cesar and Sylvia Ochoa , The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion for
through respondent Araceli Azones, ostensibly acting as Intervention and to Admit Attached Motion for
attorney-in-fact, filed an action in the RTC seeking the Reconsideration, which was subsequently denied by the CA in
annulment of contract of mortgage, foreclosure sale, its assailed resolution. Hence, this petition.
certificate of sale and damages. The petitioners as defendants
in the civil case, filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the sole
ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. ISSUE: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman may be
allowed to intervene and seek reconsideration of the adverse
RTCs Ruling: RTC denied the petition and at the same time decision rendered by the CA?
set the civil case for pre-trial, directing the parties to submit
their briefs.
HELD:
Petitioner filed a second motion to dismiss, alleging that the
certification against forum shopping was not executed by the No. It is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance of a
parties themselves. Respondents opposed the second motion Motion to Intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of
to dismiss, RTC agreed with respondents. Petitioners filed MR the court. The permissive tenor of the rules shows the
but RTC denied. intention to give to the court the full measure of discretion in
Petitioner went to CA via a petition for certiorari. permitting or disallowing the intervention,8 thus:
CAs Ruling: CA denied for lack of merit, in its decision, it
agreed with the RTC that following the omnibus motion rule, SECTION1.Who may intervene.A person who has a legal
the defects of the complaint pointed out by the petitioners interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either
were deemed waived when they failed to raise it in their first of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as
motion to dismiss. to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition
Issue: Whether the omnibus motion rule will apply. of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof
Held: Yes. An order denying a motion to dismiss is an may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the
interlocutory order which neither terminates the case nor action. The court shall consider whether or not the
finally disposes of it as it leaves something to be done by the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
court before the case is finally decided on the merits. An order the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the
denying such may only be reviewed in the ordinary course of intervenors rights may be fully protected in a separate
law by an appeal from the judgment after trial. Only in proceeding.
exceptional cases where the denial of the motion to dismiss is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion that the court allows SECTION2.Time to intervene.The motion to intervene
the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. A motion to dismiss is may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the
an omnibus motion because it attacks a pleading, that is, the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be
complaint. For this reason, a motion to dismiss, like any other attached to the motion and served on the original parties.
omnibus motion must raise and include all objections (Emphasis supplied.)
available at the time of the filing of the motion because
under Section 8, all objections not so included shall be Simply, intervention is a procedure by which third persons,
deemed waived. not originally parties to the suit but claiming an interest in the
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. SISON subject matter, come into the case in order to protect their
612 SCRA 702 (2010) right or interpose their claim. Its main purpose is to settle in
one action and by a single judgment all conflicting claims of,
TOPIC: Intervention; Requisites: Intervention Is Discretionary or the whole controversy among, the persons involved.
upon the Court.
To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court,
DOCTRINE: To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal
Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has interest in the matter in litigation; and (2) intervention must
a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and (2) intervention not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable
rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. The
capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. interest, which entitles one to intervene, must involve the
The interest, which entitles one to intervene, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate
matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the
character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.
direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.
ANONUEVO VS. INTESTATE ESTATE OF JALANDONI
FACTS: 636 SCRA
Topic: Intervention
The Isog Han Samar Movement, represented by Fr. Noel Facts:
Labendia of the Diocese of Calbayog, Catbalogan, Samar, filed Rodolfo Jalandoni died intestate. His brother Bernardino filed
a letter-complaint accusing Governor Milagrosa T. Tan and petition for issuance of letters of administration with Court of
other local public officials of the Province of Samar, including First Instance of Negros Occidental to commence the judicial
respondent Maximo D. Sison, before the Office of the settlement of the estate. May Anonuevo and their siblings
Ombudsman relative to the alleged highly anomalous introduced themselves as children of Sylvia Desantis, who is
transactions entered into by them amounting to several the daughter of Isabel Blee, who at the time of Rodolfos
millions of pesos. The alleged calamity funds were expended death is the legal spouse of the letter. Thus, isable is entitled
without a State of Calamity having been declared by the to a share in estate of Rodolfo.
President; and that purchases for rice, medicines, electric Petitioners pray that they be allowed to intervene on behalf in
fans, and cement were substantially overpriced. Sison was the the intestate proceedings because Sylvia and Isabel have
Provincial Budget Officer. already passed away. Respondents opposed because the
evidences showed by the Petitioners revealed that Isabel has CA, which was still pending before the RTC of Pasig City as of 2008.
a subsisting marriage with John Desantis at time she was
ADRDI asserted ownership over the subject property. While still
purportedly married to Rodolfo. Thus, marriage with Rodolfo
was void ab initio. pending in court, ADRDI subsequently transferred the subject
The intestate court issued an order allowing petitioners to property to Amado Araneta (Araneta) to whom TCT No. 70589 was
take part in settlement proceedings. CA sided with the issued on March 25, 1983
respondents with regard to the marriage of Isabel with John
Desantis.
On November 14, 1996, Landicho executed a Deed of Absolute Sales
Issue: (sic) over the subject property in favor of herein petitioner Deogenes
Whether CA erred when it nullified the orders of intestate O. Rodriguez (Rodriguez). Two years later, on June 1, 1998,
court allowing Petitioners to intervene in settlement
Landicho died.
proceedings

Ruling: NO On May 18, 2005, Rodriguez filed an Omnibus Motion alleging

A courts power to allow or deny intervention, albeit therein that the Decision dated November 16, 1965 and Order dated
discretionary in nature, is circumscribed by the basic demand
December 22, 1965 of the CFI in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 which
of sound judicial procedure that only a person with interest in
an action or proceeding may be allowed to intervene. confirmed Landichos title over the subject property has not been
Otherwise stated, a court has no authority to allow a person, executed alleging that no OCT had been ever issued by the ROD in
who has no interest in an action or proceeding, to intervene Landichos name. As Landichos successor-in-interest to the subject
therein.
property, Rodriguez prayed that the Register of Deeds for Marikina
Petitioners and their siblings failed to offer sufficient evidence
to establish that Isabel was the legal spouse of Rodolfo. The City issue OCT in his name.
very evidence of the petitioners and their siblings negates
their claim that Isabel has interest in Rodolfos estate. The Concerning the aforementioned Omnibus Motion, Rodriguez
birth certificate of Sylvia precisely serves as the competent
himself submitted TCT No. 482970 of PCCAI but alleged that said
evidence of marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.
The inability of the petitioners and their siblings to present certificate of title was fictitious. Thus, the RTC issued on November
evidence to prove that Isabels prior marriage was dissolved 3, 2006 a subpoena commanding PCCAI to appear at the hearing of
results in a failure to establish that she has interest in the Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 and to bring its TCT No. 482970 and
estate of Rodolfo. Clearly, an intervention by the petitioners
and their siblings in the settlement proceedings cannot be Tax Declaration No. SM-02-0229; and to testify in connection
justified. therewith.

RODRIGUEZ VS CA On November 17, 2006, PCCAI filed before the RTC a Verified
Motion for Leave to Intervene in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098.
TOPIC: Motion to Intervene PCCAI justified its intervention by arguing that it was an
DOCTRINE: Although Rule 19 of the indispensable party in the case, having substantial legal interest
Rules of Court is explicit on the period when a motion to intervene therein as the registered owner of the subject property under TCT
may be filed, the Supreme Court allowed exceptions in several No. 482970. PCCAI likewise pointed out that Rodriguez himself
cases.Although Rule 19 is explicit on the period when a motion to submitted a copy of TCT No. 482970, only alleging that said
intervene may be filed, the Court allowed exceptions in several certificate was fictitious. PCCAI averred that Rodriguez maliciously
cases, viz.: This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have failed to allege in his Omnibus Motion that TCT No. 482970
been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when remains valid and subsisting, there being no direct action or final
demanded by the higher interest of justice. Interventions court decree for its cancellation. Rodriguezs Omnibus Motion
have also been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have constituted a collateral attack on the title of PCCAI, which is not
not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has sanctioned by law and jurisprudence. Consequently, PCCAI asked
been rendered by the trial court, when the petition for review of the the RTC to allow its intervention in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 so
judgment has already been submitted for decision before the it could protect its vested rights and interests over the subject
Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already property; to note and admit its Answer-in-Intervention; and to deny
become final and executory. Rodriguezs Omnibus Motion for utter lack of merit.

FACTS: The RTC favorably acted on Rodriguezs Omnibus Motion in an

On January 29, 1965, Purita Landicho filed before the CFI of Rizal Order dated April 10, 2007.
an Application for Registration of a piece of land, measuring 125
hectares, located in San Mateo, Rizal. On November 16, 1965, the Issue: Whether or not the motion to intervene filed by PCCAI is
CFI rendered a Decision evaluating the evidence presented by the proper even though it was filed after rendition of judgment by the
parties as follows: trial court. YES

It has been established that the parcel of land under consideration Ruling: Intervention is governed by Rule 19 of the Rules of Court,
was formerly several smaller parcels owned and possessed by the pertinent provisions of which read: SECTION 1. Who may
several people, all of whom in January 1960, executed instruments intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in
of conditional sale of their respective parcels of land in favor of litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest
[Landicho], x x x, and on July 20, 1965 all of them executed jointly a against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
final deed of absolute sale x x x which superseded the conditional distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the
sale. The applicant is entitled to the benefits provided by Section court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to
48, of C.A. No. 141, as amended. intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
The CFI confirmed the title of the applicant, Purita Landicho to the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenors
parcel of land under consideration and orders the registration rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
thereof in her name and personal circumstances aforementioned.
The opposition of the Director of Lands was dismissed. SECTION 2. Time to intervene. The motion to intervene may be
filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A
Upon finality, a TCT was issued instead of an OCT. After several copy of the pleading- nintervention shall be attached to the motion
sales, respondent Philippine Chinese Charitable Association, Inc. and served on the original parties.
(PCCAI), under TCT No. 482970, became owner on July 15, 1975.
Although Rule 19 is explicit on the period when a motion to
MEANWHILE, A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. (ADRDI) instituted intervene may be filed, the Court allowed exceptions in several
Civil Case No. 12044 entitled A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. v. cases, viz:
 preliminary injunction, on March 8, on May 22, and again on
June 6, 2012. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction was granted
This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been
by the CA 14th Division, which not for long was questioned.
allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when Complainants filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for
demanded by the higher interest of justice. Interventions have also Certiorari and Prohibition, seeking to annul the writ of
been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been preliminary injunction issued by the CAs Special 14th
Division. Complainants also filed an Administrative case
impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been
against the Justices of the 14th Division of the CA. Alleged in
rendered by the trial court, when the petition for review of the this administrative complaint that the respondent Justices are
judgment has already been submitted for decision before the guilty of grave misconduct, conduct detrimental to the
Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already service, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and
manifest partiality.
become final and executory. In Lim v. Pacquing, the motion for
intervention filed by the Republic of the Philippines was allowed by Issue:
this Court to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and Whether the Ricaforts have a legal personality to assail the
for all the substantive issues raised by the parties. writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA 14th Division.

Held:
In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention NO. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in
rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
appropriate circumstances. interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely
affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in
the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with
We stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.Section
procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that a person who
completely available for justice. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay, has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success
of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so
but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an
The particular circumstances of this case similarly justify the officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to
relaxation of the rules of procedure on intervention. First, the intervene in the action. Conversely, a person who is not a
party in the main suit cannot be bound by an ancillary writ,
interests of both PCCAI and Rodriguez in the subject property arose such as a preliminary injunction. Indeed, he cannot be
only after the CFI Decision dated November 16, 1965 in Land Reg. affected by any proceeding to which he is
Case No. N-5098 became final and executory. Second, as previously a stranger. Moreover, a person not an aggrieved party in the
discussed herein, both PCCAI and Rodriguez trace their titles back original proceedings that gave rise to the petition for
certiorari, will not be permitted to bring the said action to
to Landicho. Hence, the intervention of PCCAI could not unduly annul or stay the injurious writ. Such is the clear import of
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of Landicho who Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, a
prayed for the execution of the November 16, 1965 Decision of the person not a party to the proceedings in the trial court or in
CFI. PCCAI moved to intervene in the case only to oppose the CA cannot maintain an action for certiorari in the Supreme
Court to have the judgment reviewed. Stated differently, if a
Rodriguezs Omnibus Motion on the ground that the subject petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not
property is already registered in its name under TCT No. 482970, a party in the lower court, he has no standing to question the
which originated from Landichos TCT No. 167681. And fourth, assailed order.
after learning of Rodriguezs Omnibus Motion in Land Reg. Case In this Courts Resolution dated July 18, 2012 in G.R. Nos.
202218-21, entitled Jose G. Ricafort, et al. v. Court of Appeals
No. N-5098 via the November 3, 2006 subpoena issued by the RTC, [Special 14th Division], et al., involving a petition for
PCCAI was reasonably expected to oppose the same. Such action certiorari and prohibition filed by JG Ricafort, De Jesus, Paolo
was the most opportune and expedient remedy available to PCCAI A. Villar, and Ma. NalenRosero-Galang, also questioning the
validity of the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the
to prevent the RTC from ordering the issuance of a decree of
Special 14th Division of the CA, we ruled that persons who are
registration and OCT in Rodriguezs name. not parties to any of the consolidated petitions have no
For this reason, the RTC should have allowed the intervention of personality to assail the said injunctive writ.
PCCAI. In another Resolution, also promulgated on July 18, 2012, in
G.R. Nos. 202257-60, a petition for certiorari and prohibition
filed by herein complainants to assail the validity of the writ of
ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The Decision preliminary injunction in the aforesaid consolidated CA
dated May 26, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. petitions, we likewise dismissed the petition due to lack of
101789, reversing and setting aside the Orders dated April 10, 2007 personality of the petitioners, since they were non-parties and
strangers to the consolidated CA petitions. We pointed out
and November 22, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75 of
that they should first have intervened below, and then filed a
San Mateo, Rizal in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098, is AFFIRMED motion for reconsideration from the questioned CA order. On
with the MODIFICATION deleting the second sentence of the September 19, 2012, we denied their motion for
dispositive portion for being a superfluity. reconsideration from the dismissal of their petition.
Fernandez vs. CA
Topic: Intervention Having established that the herein complainants have no
personality to assail the writ of preliminary injunction issued
Facts: by the CAs former Special 14th Division, we cannot now
Complainants Ethelwoldo Fernandez, and Antonio Henson permit them to harass the CA Justices who issued the same.
were elected to the board of directors of NADECOR. In a For even granting that the issuance of the writ was erroneous,
regular stockholders meeting where two groups were vying as a matter of public policy a magistrate cannot be held
for control over the company, Calalang, De Jesus, Romulo, administratively liable for every discretionary but erroneous
Ayala, Lazatin, Fernandez, Nitorreda, Engle were Elected. order he issues. The settled rule is that a Judge cannot be
Gatmaitan was also elected as Corporate Secretary. held to account civilly, criminally or administratively for an
Thereafter, Ricafort/s, claiming to be stockholders of record, erroneous decision render
sought to annul the said meeting held. They filed a complaint
before the RTC of PASIG. Ricafort/s alleged that they were not
given due notice of the said meeting thus they were not
present and were not able to exercise their right. RTC agreed PANOLINO v. TAJALA
with the Ricaforts. Four separate Petition for Certiorari were
filed by the members of the board with the CA, all with G.R. No. 183616; June 29, 2010
application for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. The CA
denied such applications, but on the same day nevertheless, Topic: Fresh Period Rule
the 11th division issued a TRO. During the effectivity of the
TRO, the old Board of Directors assumed the functions of the FACTS:
new one in order to prevent any hiatus and not to prejudice
the corporation. All the CA petitions were consolidated as well The DENR Regional Executive Director Jim O. Sampulna (RD
as the other cases. On February 17, 2012, the respondents Sampulna), by Decision2 of June 19, 2007, denied for lack
Ricafort filed their Comment Ad Cautelam to the petition in merit the application of Julieta Panolino (petitioner), which was
CA-G.R. No. 122784. The petitioners therein thereafter filed opposed by herein respondent Josephine L. Tajala, for a free
three (3) urgent motions to resolve their application for writ of patent over a parcel of land located in Kinayao, Bagumbayan,
Sultan Kudarat, directed petitioner to vacate the contested issue raised is clearly a question of fact," denied petitioners
property and remove at her expense whatever improvements motion. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
she may have introduced thereon, and advised respondent to
file her free patent application over the contested property ISSUE:
within sixty days.
Whether or not the "fresh period rule" laid down in Neypes
Petitioner received a copy of the decision on June 27, 2007, of applies to petitioners case.
which she filed a motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2007.
Her motion was denied by Order5 of September 6, 2007, copy HELD:
of which she received on September 12, 2007.
As reflected in the above-quoted portion of the decision in
On September 19, 2007, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal Neypes, the "fresh period rule" shall apply to Rule 40 (appeals
before the Office of RD Sampulna, stating that she was from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts);
appealing the decision and order to the Office of the DENR Rule 41 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
Secretary. By Order of October 16, 2007, RD Sampulna denied Appeals or Supreme Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the
the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed beyond the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals); Rule 43
reglementary period. The RD explained that petitioner should (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals);
have filed her appeal on September 13, 2007 as she had only and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court).
one day left of the 15-day reglementary period for the Obviously, these Rules cover judicial proceedings under the
purpose, pursuant to DENR Administrative Order No. 87, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Series of 1990.
Petitioners present case is administrative in nature involving
Invoking the rule enunciated by this Court in the 2005 case of an appeal from the decision or order of the DENR regional
Neypes v. CA, petitioner argued in her motion for office to the DENR Secretary. Such appeal is indeed governed
reconsideration of RD Sampulnas October 16, 2007 Order by Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990.
that she still had a fresh period of fifteen days from her As earlier quoted, Section 1 clearly provides that if the motion
receipt on September 12, 2007 of copy of the September 6, for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall perfect his
2007 Order denying her motion for reconsideration of the June appeal "during the remainder of the period of appeal,
19, 2007 Decision of the RD or until September 27, 2007. Her reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial;" whereas if
motion was denied by Order10 of November 28, 2007. the decision is reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day
period to perfect his appeal.
Petitioner elevated the matter via certiorari before the Court
of Appeals which, by Resolution of January 25, 2008, Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, as clarified in Neypes,
dismissed it on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust being inconsistent with Section 1 of Administrative Order No.
administrative remedies, she having bypassed the Office of 87, Series of 1990, it may not apply to the case of petitioner
the DENR Secretary and the Office of the President before whose motion for reconsideration was denied.
resorting to judicial action.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that her petition

for certiorari raised a purely legal issue. CA holding that "the