This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-02-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While we may agree with the private respondents' claim that the matter of intervention is addressed to the sound discretion of the court,[33] what should not be forgotten is the requirement that the exercise of discretion must in the first place be "sound." In other words, the basic precepts of fair play and the protection of all interests involved must always be considered in the exercise of discretion. Under the circumstances of the present case, these considerations demand that the original parties to the action, which include the Republic, must have been properly informed to give them a chance to protect their interests. These interests include, among others, the protection of the Republic's revenue-generating authority that should have been insulated against damage through the filing of a proper bond. Thus, even from this narrow view that does not yet consider the element of fair play, the private respondents' case must fail; judicial discretion cannot override a party litigant's right to due process. | |||||
|
2011-08-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a party in order for him to protect his interest and for the court to settle all conflicting claims.[34] Intervention is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits more than on due process considerations.[35] To warrant intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest on the matter in litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.[36] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Sison,[67] the Court expounded on the rules on intervention: It is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance of a Motion 10 Intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The permissive tenor of the rules shows the intention lo give to the court the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the intervention, thus: | |||||