OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. SISON 612 SCRA 702 (2010) TOPIC:Intervention; Requisites: Intervention Is Discretionary upon the Court.
To To warrant warrant intervention under Rule Rule 19 of the the Rules Rules of Court, two requisites requisites ust ust concur: concur: !1" DOCTRINE: the ovant has a le#al interest in the atter in liti#ation; and !$" intervention ust not unduly delay or pre%udice the ad%udication of the ri#hts of the parties, nor should the clai of the intervenor &e capa&le capa&le of &ein# &ein# properl properly y decided decided in a separate separate proceedin# proceedin#.. The interest, interest, which which entitles entitles one to intervene, ust involve the atter in liti#ation and of such direct and iediate character that the intervenor will either #ain or lose &y the direct le#al operation and e'ect of the %ud#ent. +r. oel -a&endia of the Diocese of Cal&ayo#, FACTS: The Iso# (an )aar *oveent, represented &y +r Cat&alo#an, )aar, led a letter/coplaint accusin# 0overnor *ila#rosa T. Tan and other local pu&lic ocials of the 2rovince of )aar, includin# respondent *a3io D. )ison, &efore the 4ce of the 4&udsan relative relative to the alle#ed hi#hly anoalous anoalous transactions entered into &y the aountin# to several illions of pesos. The alle#ed calaity funds were e3pended without a )tate of Calaity havin# &een declared &y the 2resident; and that purchases for rice, edicines, electric fans, and ceent were su&stantially overpriced. )ison was the 2rovincial 5ud#et 4cer. The 4ce of the 4&udsan found &asis to proceed with the adinistrative adinistrative case a#ainst the iplea ipleaded ded prov provinc incial ial ocial ocials s of )aar )aar.. In his his counte counterr/adav /adavit, it, )ison )ison vehee veheentl ntly y denied denied the accusa accusatio tions ns and and asser asserted ted that that his his functi function on is liite liited d to the issua issuance nce of a certi certica catio tion n that that an appropriation for the requisition e3ists, that the correspondin# aount has &een o&li#ated, and that funds are availa&le. (e averred that he never participated in the alle#ed irre#ularities as shown in the inutes and attendance sheet of the &iddin# and that not one of the docuentary evidences so far attached in the letter/coplaint &ore his si#nature. The 4ce of the 4&udsan 4&udsan rendered rendered a Decision, Decision, ndin# )ison and and several other local local ocials of the 2rovince of )aar #uilty of #rave isconduct, dishonesty, and conduct pre%udicial to the &est interest of the service service and disissin# hi hi fro service. 6##rieved, 6##rieved, )ison appealed to the C6 via a 2etition for Review under Rule 78. C6 rendered a decision reversin# and settin# aside the decision of the 4ce of the 4&udsan a#ainst )ison. The 4ce of the 4&udsan led an 4ni&us *otion for Intervention Intervention and to 6dit 6ttached *otion for Reconsideration, which was su&sequently denied &y the C6 in its assailed resolution. (ence, this petition.
ISSUE: hether the 4ce of the 4&udsan ay &e allowed to intervene and see reconsideration
of the adverse decision rendered &y the C6
HELD:o. It is fundaental that the allowance or disallowance of a *otion to Intervene is addressed to
the sound discretion of the court. The perissive tenor of the rules shows the intention to #ive to the court the full easure of discretion in perittin# or disallowin# the intervention,< thus: =)>CTI4 1.@ho ay intervene.A6 intervene.A6 person who has a le#al interest in the atter in liti#ation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest a#ainst &oth, or is so situated as to &e adversely a'ected &y a distri&ution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an ocer thereof ay, with leave of court, &e allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or pre%udice the ad%udication of the ri#hts of the ori#inal ori#inal parties, parties, and whether or not the interven intervenorBs orBs ri#hts ay &e fully fully protecte protected d in a separate separate proceedin#. )>CTI4 )>CTI4 $.@T $.@Tie ie to inter interve vene. ne.AT AThe he otion otion to inter interven vene e ay &e led led at any any tie tie &efor &efore e rendition rendition of %ud#ent &y the trial court. 6 copy of the pleadin#/in/intervention pleadin#/in/intervention shall &e attached to the otion and served on the ori#inal parties. !>phasis supplied."
)iply, intervention is a procedure &y which third persons, not ori#inally parties to the suit &ut claiin# an interest in the su&%ect atter, coe into the case in order to protect their ri#ht or interpose their clai. Its ain purpose is to settle in one action and &y a sin#le %ud#ent all conictin# clais of, or the whole controversy aon#, the persons involved. To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites ust concur: !1" the ovant has a le#al interest in the atter in liti#ation; and !$" intervention ust not unduly delay or pre%udice the ad%udication of the ri#hts of the parties, nor should the clai of the intervenor &e capa&le of &ein# properly decided in a separate proceedin#. The interest, which entitles one to intervene, ust involve the atter in liti#ation and of such direct and iediate character that the intervenor will either #ain or lose &y the direct le#al operation and e'ect of the %ud#ent.
