Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF GERONIMO RESTRIVERA v. SALVADOR DE GUZMAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 189698 2010-02-22	ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS PUNO, C.J.
In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court[12] after consideration of the appropriate circumstances.[13] We stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice.[14] Its purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice.[15]
	GR No. 185954 2010-02-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MAXIMO D. SISON VELASCO JR., J.
It is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance of a Motion to Intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[7] The permissive tenor of the rules shows the intention to give to the court the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the intervention,[8] thus: 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 an 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.
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2010-02-11	PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
Even the joinder of SUFAC, MOFAZS, and PAKISAMA with co-intervenors Tañada and Santos will not cure the flawed motion. In Heirs of Geronimo Restrivera v. De Guzman,[12] the Court explained why: Indeed, the right of intervention should be accorded to any one having title to property "which is the subject of litigation, provided that his right will be substantially affected by the direct legal operation and effect of the decision, and provided also that it is reasonably necessary for him to safeguard an interest of his own which no other party on record is interested in protecting." (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 176409 2008-02-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO S. MIEDES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Under the rules on intervention, the allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[14] Discretion is a faculty of a court or an official by which he may decide a question either way, and still be right.[15] The permissive tenor of the rules shows an intention to give to the court the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the intervention. The discretion of the court, once exercised, cannot be reviewed by certiorari or controlled by mandamus save in instances where such discretion has been so exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner.[16]
	GR NO. 166281 2006-10-27	JESUS ANGELES v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the present case, the trial court admitted the complaint-in-intervention of the heirs of Juan Sanga on their claim that they are the owners of the property subject of the complaint, as ruled by the RTC in Civil Case No. B-541. Being the owners of the property, said heirs should be accorded the right to intervene. Their rights will be directly and substantially affected by the direct legal operation and effect of the decision of the trial court. It was imperative for them to safeguard their interests over the property.[49] The allowance or disallowance of a motion for leave to intervene and the admission of a complaint-in-intervention is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The discretion of the court, once exercised, cannot be reviewed by certiorari save in instances where such discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner.