Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUBEN SAW v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179516 2009-03-17	EXECUTIVE SECRETARY v. NORTHEAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To allow intervention, (a) it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or is otherwise qualified; and (b) consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenor's rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. Both requirements must concur, as the first is not more important than the second.[15]
	GR NO. 166901 2006-10-27	ASIAN TERMINALS v. HELEN BAUTISTA-RICAFORT CALLEJO, SR., J.
On November 30, 2004, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition for lack of merit.[28] The appellate court ruled that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondents. Under the Customs and Tarriff Code, the Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings had the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions relating on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. The RTC had no review powers over such proceedings; it is the Court of Tax Appeals under RA No. 1125. Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the main case, it was also bereft of authority to hear the third-party claim or the complaint-in-intervention filed by ATI. Citing Saw v. Court of Appeals,[29] the appellate court ruled that intervention was not an independent proceeding but merely an ancillary and supplemental one, which, in the nature of things, is subordinate to the main proceeding unless otherwise provided for by statute or by the Rules of Court. The general rule is that an intervention is limited to the field of litigation open to the original parties. The RTC had dismissed the main action; thus, there was no more principal proceeding in which petitioner ATI may intervene.
	GR No. 130228 2004-07-27	BERNABE FOSTER-GALLEGO v. SPS. ROMEO AND VIVIEN GALANG CARPIO, J.
True, this Court has on occasion held that an order denying a motion for intervention is appealable.[19] Where the lower court's denial of a motion for intervention amounts to a final order, an appeal is the proper remedy,[20] as when the denial leaves the intervenor without further remedy or resort to judicial relief.