This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the opportuness of intervention, the Court held in Cariño v. Ofilada[23] that it may be allowed only before or during trial. The term trial is used in its restricted sense, i.e., the period for the introduction of evidence by both parties. The period of trial terminates when the judgment begins. As this case was already in its appeal stage when intervention was sought, it could no longer be allowed. | |||||
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Cariño v. Ofilado,[18] we declared that legal interest should be an interest that is actual and material, direct and immediate, not simply contingent or expectant. The concept of the directness and immediacy involved is no different from that required in motions for intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court that allow one who is not a party to the case to participate because of his or her direct and immediate interest, characterized by either gain or loss from the judgment that the court may render.[19] In the present case, the NPC's ownership of the plant will happen only after the lapse of the 25-year period; until such time arrives, the NPC's claim of ownership is merely contingent, i.e., dependent on whether the plant and its machineries exist at that time. Prior to this event, the NPC's real interest is only in the continued operation of the plant for the generation of electricity. This interest has not been shown to be adversely affected by the realty taxes imposed and is an interest that NPC can protect, not by claiming an exemption that is not due to Mirant, but by paying the taxes it (NPC) has assumed for Mirant under the ECA. | |||||
|
2004-07-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides: "SECTION 1. Who may intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or in 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 leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding." In Cariño vs. Ofilada,[7] we defined "legal interest" as follows: "The interest contemplated by law must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent or expectant; it must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. The words 'an interest in the subject' means a direct interest in the cause of action as pleaded, and which would put the intervenor in the legal position to litigate a fact averred in the complaint, without the establishment of which plaintiff could not recover." Here, respondent TRICOM's legal interest in the subject property cannot be disputed. As shown by the Deed of Assignment dated January 29, 1990 and the Deed of Sale on Installments dated August 17, 1992, respondents transferred and sold to respondent TRICOM the subject landholding. As a purchaser, respondent acquired an interest in the property, and thus, has standing to intervene to protect such interest. | |||||