[G.R. No. 126731. July 11, 2002]
ESTEBAN YAU, petitioner, vs. THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, respondent.
[G.R. No. 128623. July 11, 2002]
THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ESTEBAN YAU, THE COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTEENTH DIVISION), and the HON. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, respondents.
Esteban Yau is the judgment creditor of Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. by virtue of a Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. CEB-2058, entitled Esteban Yau v. Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation, et al., which included Silverio as one of the defendants. The decision became final and executory and, accordingly, a writ of execution was issued. Silverio failed to pay said judgement and the only asset of Silverio that could satisfy of the judgment was his proprietary membership share in the Manila Golf. The share was auctioned and Yau emerged as the highest and only bidder and the corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in his name.
However, at the time of the execution sale, the Silverio share was already subject to a prior levy pursuant to separate writs of preliminary attachment obtained by the Manilabank before which complaints for sums of money were pending, in which Silverio is also one of the defendants.
Yau filed separate motions to intervene in both cases pending before the RTC. RTC denied the motion to intervene in Civil Case No. 90-513 on the ground that the motion was filed after the parties have rested their respective cases and the same will only unduly delay the disposition of the case. However, Yau was granted the motion to intervene in the Civil Case No. 90-271.
In G.R. No. 128623, the issue revolves on the legality of the intervention of Yau in Civil Case No. 90-271 before RTC. Manilabank argues that Yau has no legal interest to justify intervention in Civil Case No. 90-271 before RTC, nor does he have standing and legal basis to assail the Writ of Attachment. Manilabank submits that whatever rights Yau may have in the subject property can be fully protected, as in fact they are already protected, in a separate proceeding. Besides, the intervention of Yau will unduly delay and prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties in Civil Case No. 90-271 before RTC. Finally, Manilabank contends that allowing intervention after trial had already been concluded is in violation of the rule that intervention may only be allowed before or during trial.
Issue: WON Yau is allowed to intervene.
Held:
The contention of Manilabank that Yau has no legal interest in the matter in litigation lacks buoyancy. Under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, which was the governing law at the time the instant case was decided by the trial court and the appellate court, a person may, before or during trial, be permitted by the Court in its discretion to intervene in an action, if he has 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 of an officer thereof. Yau falls under the last instance. It is recognized that a judgment creditor who has reduced his claim to judgment may be allowed to intervene and a purchaser who acquires an interest in property upon which an attachment has been levied may intervene in the underlying action in which the writ of attachment was issued for the purpose of challenging the attachment.
Clearly, Yau, being the judgment creditor of Silverio in Civil Case No. CEB-2058 and the purchaser at the public auction sale of the Silverio share, would be adversely affected by the disposition of the Silverio share, subject of the writ of attachment issued by the RTC, should a decision be rendered in favor of Manilabank and, as such, has standing to intervene to protect his interest. Besides, no purpose will be served by not allowing Yau to protect his interests where the Silverio share is under custodia legis. If we follow the contention of Manilabank, this would result in a violation of the aforementioned principle of judicial stability or non-interference.
Lastly, on the matter of allowing the intervention after trial, suffice it to state that the rules now allow intervention before rendition of judgment by the trial court. After trial and decision in a case, intervention can no longer be permitted. The permissive tenor of the provision on intervention shows the intention of the Rules to give to the court the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the same. The rule on intervention was evidently intended to expedite and economize in litigation by permitting parties interested in the subject matter, or anything related therein, to adjust the matter in one instead of several suits.
ESTEBAN YAU, petitioner, vs. THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, respondent.
[G.R. No. 128623. July 11, 2002]
THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ESTEBAN YAU, THE COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTEENTH DIVISION), and the HON. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, respondents.
Esteban Yau is the judgment creditor of Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. by virtue of a Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. CEB-2058, entitled Esteban Yau v. Philippine Underwriters Finance Corporation, et al., which included Silverio as one of the defendants. The decision became final and executory and, accordingly, a writ of execution was issued. Silverio failed to pay said judgement and the only asset of Silverio that could satisfy of the judgment was his proprietary membership share in the Manila Golf. The share was auctioned and Yau emerged as the highest and only bidder and the corresponding Certificate of Sale was issued in his name.
However, at the time of the execution sale, the Silverio share was already subject to a prior levy pursuant to separate writs of preliminary attachment obtained by the Manilabank before which complaints for sums of money were pending, in which Silverio is also one of the defendants.
Yau filed separate motions to intervene in both cases pending before the RTC. RTC denied the motion to intervene in Civil Case No. 90-513 on the ground that the motion was filed after the parties have rested their respective cases and the same will only unduly delay the disposition of the case. However, Yau was granted the motion to intervene in the Civil Case No. 90-271.
In G.R. No. 128623, the issue revolves on the legality of the intervention of Yau in Civil Case No. 90-271 before RTC. Manilabank argues that Yau has no legal interest to justify intervention in Civil Case No. 90-271 before RTC, nor does he have standing and legal basis to assail the Writ of Attachment. Manilabank submits that whatever rights Yau may have in the subject property can be fully protected, as in fact they are already protected, in a separate proceeding. Besides, the intervention of Yau will unduly delay and prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties in Civil Case No. 90-271 before RTC. Finally, Manilabank contends that allowing intervention after trial had already been concluded is in violation of the rule that intervention may only be allowed before or during trial.
Issue: WON Yau is allowed to intervene.
Held:
The contention of Manilabank that Yau has no legal interest in the matter in litigation lacks buoyancy. Under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, which was the governing law at the time the instant case was decided by the trial court and the appellate court, a person may, before or during trial, be permitted by the Court in its discretion to intervene in an action, if he has 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 of an officer thereof. Yau falls under the last instance. It is recognized that a judgment creditor who has reduced his claim to judgment may be allowed to intervene and a purchaser who acquires an interest in property upon which an attachment has been levied may intervene in the underlying action in which the writ of attachment was issued for the purpose of challenging the attachment.
Clearly, Yau, being the judgment creditor of Silverio in Civil Case No. CEB-2058 and the purchaser at the public auction sale of the Silverio share, would be adversely affected by the disposition of the Silverio share, subject of the writ of attachment issued by the RTC, should a decision be rendered in favor of Manilabank and, as such, has standing to intervene to protect his interest. Besides, no purpose will be served by not allowing Yau to protect his interests where the Silverio share is under custodia legis. If we follow the contention of Manilabank, this would result in a violation of the aforementioned principle of judicial stability or non-interference.
Lastly, on the matter of allowing the intervention after trial, suffice it to state that the rules now allow intervention before rendition of judgment by the trial court. After trial and decision in a case, intervention can no longer be permitted. The permissive tenor of the provision on intervention shows the intention of the Rules to give to the court the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the same. The rule on intervention was evidently intended to expedite and economize in litigation by permitting parties interested in the subject matter, or anything related therein, to adjust the matter in one instead of several suits.
No comments:
Post a Comment