ancillary to the original action suchthat the dismissal of the original case

Ancillary to the original action suchthat the

This preview shows page 21 - 22 out of 22 pages.

ancillary to the original action, suchthat the dismissal of the original case necessarily includes that of the petition-in-intervention.37 It further held that even if Sps. Nazal were to be consideredas real parties-in-interest, the better remedy for them is to file a separate action, as principal plaintiffs, against Majestic.38 Aggrieved, Sps. Nazal elevated the matter before the CA.39 The CA Ruling In a Decision40 dated October 30, 2008, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s July 28, 2003 Order, holding that Sps. Nazal are entitled to proceed with the prosecution of their cause of action against Majestic after having been duly allowed to intervene in the annulment case.41 It further held that to require Sps. Nazal to refile another case for the settlement of their claim will result in unnecessary delay and expense, and will entail multiplicity of suits, hence, defeat the very purpose of intervention, i.e., to hear and determine at the same timeall conflicting claims which may be made on the subject matter in litigation,and to expedite litigation and settle in one action and by a single judgment the whole controversy among the persons involved.42 Accordingly, it remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.43 Majestic’s motion for reconsideration44 was denied by the CA in a Resolution45 dated June 22, 2011, hence, the instant petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in allowing Sps. Nazal to prosecute their claim against Majestic. The Court’s Ruling The petition is meritorious. Sps. Nazal, who were joined as intervenors in the proceedings, had already lost their right to participate therein, in view of the RTC’s dismissal of the main action which was decreed pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court,46 stemming from the failure of the putative plaintiff, Tito, to diligently and expeditiously prosecutethe same for an unjustified and unreasonable length of time. Case law states that intervention is never an independent action, but is merely ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation.1âwphi1 Its purpose is not to obstruct or unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, who is claiming 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 other words, the right of an interven or should only be in aid of the right of the original party. Thus, as a general rule,47 where the right of the latter has ceased to exist, there is nothing to aid or fight for and, consequently, the right of intervention ceases.48 It bears pointing out that, despite having been joined in the annulment case as intervenors, Sps. Nazal should have actually been deemed as the case’s plaintiffs considering that Titohad already transferred his interest over the disputed property to the former, even prior to the institution of the
Image of page 21
proceedings. Verily, where a transfer of interest was effected before the
Image of page 22

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 22 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • Supreme Court of the United States, habeas data

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture