THIRD DIVISION
|
MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., Petitioner, - versus- HON. COURT
OF APPEALS (FORMER SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION), VICTOR AFRICA and JOHN/JANE
DOES, styling themselves as the Board of Directors/Officers of Philippine
Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 166984 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
This
Court is presently faced with a unique circumstance wherein the opposing
parties – petitioner Manuel H. Nieto, Jr. (Nieto) and private respondent Victor
A. Africa (
The present Petition is just one of the numerous disputes arising from the fiercely contested control of three corporations – Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippines Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC). All three corporations are related since POTC wholly owns PHILCOMSAT, and PHILCOMSAT owns 80% of PHC.
Sometime
in 2003, an unnamed stockholder of PHC filed a complaint with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that PHC had not conducted its annual
stockholders’ meeting and was thus unable to elect members of its Board of
Directors for the years 2001 to 2003. In
the meantime, members of the previous Board of Directors continued to serve as
such all these years in their holdover capacity. The complaint was docketed as SEC Case No.
The SEC then held a conference and conducted hearings among the parties concerned. Apparently, the SEC gave credence to the assertions of PHC Directors Philip Brodett (who was also PHC Vice President) and Enrique Locsin (Government Nominee in PHC) in their letter, dated 8 January 2004, that –
1. x x x PHC’s
inability to hold its annual stockholders’ meeting in the past years can be
attributed to the following: previous attempt of the group of Mesdames Cristina
Ilusorio and Sylvia Ilusorio
and Mr. Carmelo Africa (for brevity the “Ilusorio Group”) to control PHC without legal basis; delay
in completion of PHC’s audited financial statements
for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 was caused by the Ilusorio
Group and the pending dispute as to who between the Ilusorio
Group, on one hand, and the group of Ambassador Manuel Nieto, Jr./Philippine
Government, on the other, properly constitutes the governing board of directors
and officers of the parent companies of PHC, namely Philcomsat
and POTC.
Considering
the aforesaid pending dispute as to who really controls the mother companies of
PHC, it would be advisable and practicable that the annual meetings of the
stockholders and the election of directors and officers of Philcomsat
and POTC should precede those of PHC. In view thereof, and for practical
reasons and good order’s sake, it was suggested that perhaps the Commission
should direct the holding of the annual stockholders’ meetings and election of
directors and officers of both Philcomsat and POTC at
a date prior or dates prior to those of PHC.[1]
In sum, PHC
cannot hold its annual stockholders’ meeting because its mother companies,
PHILCOMSAT and POTC, were also unable to hold their respective annual
stockholders’ meeting and election of members of the Board of Directors pending
resolution of the controversy as to who are the legitimate stockholders of said
companies. To address the problem at
PHC, the SEC, through its General Counsel, Atty. Vernette
G. Umali-Paco (Atty. Umali-Paco),
issued an Order, dated
1. POTC
and Philcomsat, their respective board of directors
or their duly authorized representatives are hereby directed to constitute,
within ten (10) days from date of actual receipt hereof, their COMELEC to be
composed of the PCGG nominee/director to act as the neutral party, a
representative from the Africa Group and one representative from the Nieto
Group to perform any and all acts necessary for the determination of the
legitimate stockholders’ (sic) of the corporation qualified to vote or be
represented in the corporate meetings and ensure a clean, orderly, and credible
election of POTC and Philcomsat.
2. POTC
is likewise directed to conduct its annual stockholders’ meeting not later than
3. PHC,
on the other hand, its board of directors or duly authorized representatives
are ordered to submit a revised calendar of activities for the forthcoming
4.
Let the Corporate
Finance Department (CFD) of this Commission be furnished with a copy of this
Order for its appropriate action on the matter.
To ensure protection of the interest of all
outstanding capital stocks, including minority shareholders, Attys. Nicanor P. Patricio Jr. and Myla
Gloria A. Amboy are hereby designated as SEC representatives to attend and
supervise the said Annual Stockholders’ Meeting.[2]
On
First. The SEC Order of
“POTC is
likewise directed to conduct its annual stockholders’ meeting not later than
should
be interpreted to mean that the
stockholders’ meetings of POTC, Philcomsat and PHC
shall be held successively, in the order mentioned, that is, POTC first, then Philcomsat, and lastly, PHC. This was the intention of the Commission in
issuing the said Order (
To further clarify and ensure that
the meetings shall be conducted on specific dates, the Order of
1. For POTC -
2. For Philcomsat -
3. For PHC -
x x x x
Accordingly, POTC, Philcomsat and Philcomsat
Holdings Corporation (PHC) are hereby reminded to strictly adhere to the
scheduled dates of meetings of the said corporations set forth in this
Order. POTC, Philcomsat
and PHC are further reminded to also comply with the manner of the conduct of
their respective meetings as provided in the Order of the Commission dated
Providing
an update on the actions taken by the parties pursuant to its foregoing orders,
the SEC, through its General Counsel, Atty. Umali-Paco,
issued a third Order, dated
On separate dates, the group of Atty. Victor Africa (“
|
|
Africa
Group |
Nieto
Group |
|
1. POTC meeting |
1. no COMELEC was constituted 2. no validation of proxies 3. the list of stockholders and the stock and transfer
were not presented during the meeting 4. As per Atty. Africa, the Meeting was not called by
the SEC but rather by the board of directors voluntarily |
1. A COMELEC was constituted composed of Mr. Locsin and Atty. Lokin (and 3rd
position supposedly for the representative of the 2. the proxies and the list of stockholders prepared by
the Asst. Corp. Sec. were presented during the meeting. 3. the Presiding Officer declared that the meeting was
called pursuant to the Order of the Commission. |
|
2. Philcomsat |
1. No SEC representative |
1. A COMELEC was constituted composed of Mr. Locsin, and Atty. Lokin 2. the proxies and the list of stockholders prepared by
the Asst. Corp. Sec. were presented during the meeting. 3. the Presiding Officer declared that the meeting was
called pursuant to the Order of the Commission |
In light of the foregoing, the Commission hereby
upholds the validity of the stockholders’ meetings conducted by the Nieto Group
in view of the clear compliance by the said group with the conditions set forth
by the Commission in its Orders of July 8 and 26, 2004.
Meanwhile, the PHC meeting shall proceed as scheduled
on
The President and the Corporate Secretary of PHC and
its Stock and Transfer Agent are hereby ordered to submit to the Commission the
certified list of stockholders and the stock and transfer book of PHC on or
before
Due to the failure of the Africa group to nominate
their representative to the PHC NOMELEC (sic), Atty. Victoria De Los Reyes is hereby designated as the
representative of the Africa group in the forthcoming August 31, 2004 PHC
meeting.
The Corporation Finance Department is hereby directed
to monitor PHC’s compliance with the laws, rules and regulations
relative to the calling of the stockholders’ meeting and to make the necessary
action to ensure such compliance.
The Order of
By virtue of the afore-quoted Order,
the SEC validated the stockholders’ meetings of POTC and PHILCOMSAT conducted
by the Nieto group. Having already
gained control of the mother companies POTC and PHILCOMSAT, the Nieto group
would undoubtedly also dominate the subsequent stockholders’ meeting and
election for the new members of the Board of Directors of PHC.
Thereafter,
Africa, in the names of POTC and PHILCOMSAT, and in his capacity as the alleged
President of said corporations, filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition[5]
for Certiorari and Prohibition with
prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of
preliminary injunction against the SEC and Atty. Umali-Paco,
the SEC General Counsel; and Nieto, Atty. Luis K. Lokin,
Jr. (Lokin), and Atty. Alobba,
purportedly misrepresenting themselves to be the Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Corporate Secretary, and Assistant Corporate Secretary,
respectively, of POTC and PHILCOMSAT.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is
respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court immediately issue a temporary
restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining:
1) the Securities and
Exchange Commission, its officers, agents and representatives including its
General Counsel, respondent Vernette G. Umali-Paco, from enforcing the Orders dated 8 July 2004, 26
July 2004 and 20 August 2004, and from continuing to act against petitioners in
the SEC Case No. 12-03-03 or on any other case involving the same issue:
2) Manuel H. Nieto,
Jr., Luis K. Lokin, Jr., Alma Kristina O. Alobba, their principals, agents and any person acting on
their behalf, from executing the August
20 Order of respondents SEC and Paco as regards
the supposed validity of their meeting, from taking control of the management,
operations and office premises of petitioners POTC and PHILCOMSAT and from
doing any act that would tend to disrupt the operations of petitioners.
Further it is respectfully prayed that this instant Petition
be granted by this Honorable Court consequently annulling and setting aside the
aforementioned Orders and the proceedings of the Securities and Exchange
Commission docketed as SEC Case No. 12-03-03 which relate to herein petitioners
and by issuing writs of certiorari and prohibition to permanently enjoin the
Securities and Exchange Commission, its officers, agents and representatives
including its General Counsel, respondent Vernette G.
Umali-Paco, from enforcing such Orders and continuing
to act against petitioners in SEC Case No. 12-03-03 or any other case involving
the same issues.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.[6]
The Court of Appeals, acting on
Africa’s Petition, issued a Resolution, dated 31 August 2004,[7]
ordering therein respondents to file their Comments within ten days from
notice, and therein petitioners to file their Reply within five days from
receipt of respondents’ Comments. The
same Resolution grants
In the meantime, since the
petition questions the jurisdiction of public respondents [SEC and Atty. Umali-Paco] in issuing the assailed Orders dated July 8,
2004, July 26, 2004 and August 20, 2004, and the implementation of the same
will render moot and academic any and all orders, resolutions and decision of
this Court, this Court hereby TEMPORARILY
RESTRAINS respondents, their officers, agents and other persons acting for
and in their behalf, from enforcing, implementing and executing the aforesaid
assailed Orders within a period of sixty (60) days or until sooner revoked.
Thereafter, the following developments
took place in CA-G.R. SP No. 85959:
(1) The SEC and Atty. Umali-Paco
filed successive motions for extension of time to file their Comment on
(2) Nieto filed an Urgent Manifestation[9]
calling the attention of the Court of Appeals to the “badges of deliberate
forum shopping” committed by
(3) Nieto and Attys. Lokin
and Alobba filed with the Court of Appeals their
Joint Comment (With Grounds for Immediate Dismissal and Opposition to the
Issuance of TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction).[12]
(4) On the other hand, Africa filed with the Court
of Appeals a Motion to Resolve Application for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction; and a Reply to the Joint Comment of Nieto and Attys. Lokin and Alobba, with a motion
to have the latter declared in contempt for insisting on executing, enforcing
and implementing the assailed SEC Orders despite the TRO issued by the
appellate court.
Without waiting for the Comment of the
SEC and Atty. Umali-Paco on Africa’s Petition, still
due on 24 November 2004, the Court of Appeals already issued a Resolution,
dated 25 October 2004, in which it ruled that there was no forum shopping on
the part of Africa, for there was no identity of parties and issues between the
civil cases before the Makati City RTCs and CA-G.R. SP No. 85959. Thus, it resolved to:
(a) NOTE private
respondent Nieto’s Urgent Manifestation;
(b) DIRECT
private respondents [Nieto and Attys. Lokin and Alobba] to SHOW
CAUSE within ten (10) days from notice why they should not be held in
contempt for not honoring the temporary restraining order issued on August 31, 2004;
and
(c) ISSUE
a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondents [SEC and Atty. Umali-Paco; Nieto and Attys. Lokin
and Alobba], their agents, officers, representatives
and other persons acting for and in their behalf from executing, enforcing and
implementing the assailed orders dated July 8, 2004, July 26, 2004 and August
20, 2004 upon the filing of a bond in the amount of ONE MILLION (P1,000,000.00) PESOS.[13]
In a
subsequent Resolution, dated 13 December 2004,[14]
the Court of Appeals denied the Motion filed by Nieto and Attys. Lokin and Alobba for
reconsideration of its 25 October 2004 Resolution; dismissed Africa’s motion to
cite Nieto and Attys. Lokin and Alobba
in contempt; noted the Comment on Africa’s Petition filed by the SEC and Atty. Umali-Paco; and gave due course to Africa’s Petition and
required the parties to file their respective memorandum.
Hence, Nieto, through his counsel,
Atty. Alobba, comes before this Court via the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, with a prayer for TRO and/or preliminary injunction, naming the Court of
Appeals as public respondent; and Africa and John/Jane Does styling themselves
as the Board of Directors/Officers of the POTC and PHILCOMSAT as private
respondents. He assails the Resolutions
of the Court of Appeals, dated 25 October 2004 and 13 December 2004, and argues
that the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in (1) granting
the application for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction without giving
all the parties sought to be enjoined the opportunity to oppose the same; (2)
granting the application for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
despite the fact that the applicant Africa had not fully established
entitlement to the same; and (3) finding that Africa did not commit forum
shopping and not dismissing the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 85959 outright. His prayer reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court:
1.
GIVE DUE COURSE to
the instant Petition;
2.
ISSUE a
Temporary Restraining Order:
a. ENJOINING the respondent Court of
Appeals, the herein private respondents, their agents, alter-egos and other
persons possessing any interest, or who shall benefit from and/or are
interested in sustaining the assailed Resolutions, from implementing and
executing the Resolutions dated
October 25, 2004 and December 13, 2004, and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated November 9, 2004 issued
pursuant thereto;
b. SUSPENDING/ENJOINING the proceedings in
CA-G.R. No. 85959 pending the final resolution of the instant petition.
3.
After notice and hearing, ISSUE the Writ of Preliminary Injunction:
a. ENJOINING the respondent Court of
Appeals, the herein private respondents [Africa and the John/Jane Does], their
agents, alter-egos and other persons possessing any interest, or who shall
benefit from and/or are interested in sustaining the assailed Resolutions, from
implementing and executing the Resolutions
dated October 25, 2004 and December 13, 2004, and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated November 9, 2004 issued
pursuant thereto;
b. SUSPENDING/ENJOINING the proceedings in
CA-G.R. No. 85959 pending the final resolution of the instant petition.
4. ANNUL AND SET ASIDE the assailed Resolution dated October 25, 2004 and Resolution dated December 13, 2004 rendered
by the respondent Court of Appeals, for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and making the aforesaid
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction PERMANENT; and
5. DISMISS CA-G.R. No. 85959 on the ground
of deliberate multiple forum shopping and take appropriate action relative
thereto.
Other just and equitable reliefs
are likewise prayed for.[15]
Nieto’s Petition was first dismissed
by this Court for lack of sufficient showing that the questioned judgment was
tainted with grave abuse of discretion;[16]
but acting favorably on Nieto’s Motion for Reconsideration,[17]
this Court reinstated his Petition and required herein private respondents to
file their respective Comments.[18]
In a Resolution, dated
On
1. After meeting
to discuss their differences and misgivings, petitioner [Nieto] and other
stockholders deemed it best to settle amicably the issues/disputes that
prompted the filing of the Petition in the above-entitled case;
2. Under the
settlement, petitioner [Nieto] and other stockholders have agreed to hold
stockholders meetings of the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation
(POTC) and the Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) to
exercise the stockholders’ rights during the meetings to be held by electing a
common slate of directors they have chosen for a lasting, peaceful and
efficient management and operations of the said corporations for the benefit of
stockholders and not for strangers and interlopers in the corporation;
3. With the
amicable settlement of the disputes and/or issues that sired the filing of the
instant petition, there is no more dispute or controversy to be resolved or
adjudicated by this Honorable Court. All
issues presented by movant has been satisfactorily
settled and, therefore, the petition would now be moot and academic.
4. To implement
the settlement forged by the petitioner [Nieto] and other stockholders,
petitioner agrees to voluntarily withdraw any and all cases he had earlier
filed in various courts and offices.
Hence, the petitioner-movant [Nieto] hereby
withdraws the instant petition to implement the amicable settlement forged for
the peace and the enjoyment of the stockholders.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the instant Petition be considered withdrawn and/or dismissed for the reasons adverted to.
In his Comment[26]
on the afore-quoted motion, Africa confirmed that the reasons stated therein
for withdrawal of the petition are in accordance with the agreement between
Nieto, on one hand, and Africa and the people the latter represents, on the
other. Inasmuch as the withdrawal of the
petition shall pave the way for the settlement of the feud among all the
parties concerned,
Even before this Court could act upon
Nieto’s Motion to Withdraw Petition, Nieto’s former counsel, Atty. Alobba, filed on
Both Nieto[29]
and
Atty. Alobba,
commenting[31]
on the opposition to her intervention in the present case, maintains that
Nieto’s Motion to Withdraw Petition was belatedly filed since the parties had
already submitted their Memoranda; that she filed her Motion for Leave to
Intervene as one of the respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 85959 before the Court of
Appeals; and that she seeks to intervene herein in order to give this Court the
opportunity to finally resolve the important and substantive issues raised in
the present Petition, to wit: violation of due process, commission of forum
shopping and determination of the jurisdiction of the SEC.
Now, for resolution of this Court are
the following interrelated issues: (1) whether to grant Nieto’s Motion to
Withdraw Petition; and (2) whether to grant Atty. Alobba’s
Motion for Leave to Intervene and give due course to her
Petition-in-Intervention in the present case.
Evidently,
Atty. Alobba seeks to intervene herein to keep G.R.
No. 166984 pending until finally resolved by this Court; and thwart the attempt
of Nieto, with the consent of
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court allows a
person to intervene in a civil case under the following circumstances:
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
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.
The nature of intervention proceedings
had been clearly and comprehensively defined by this Court in Garcia v. David,[32]
to wit:
Intervention is a proceeding
in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make
himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the
complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or
demanding something adversely to both of them; the act or proceeding by which a
third person becomes a party in a suit pending between others; the admission,
by leave of court, of a person not an original party to pending legal
proceedings, by which such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of
some right or interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings. (33 C.J.,
477.) Fundamentally, therefore, intervention is never an independent action,
but is ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation. Its purpose is
not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the placid operation of the machinery
of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party, yet having a certain
right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined
so he could assert or protect such right or interest. The law on intervention
in this jurisdiction, is found in section 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which is a verbatim copy of section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the
State of
x x
x x
A cursory examination of the above provision will show three important elements: (1) That only a person having a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, may intervene; (2) that therefore a mere intruder or stranger who has no legal interest and whose presence would only make the proceeding complicated, expensive and interminable may not be allowed to intervene; (3) that the permissive tenor of the legal provision evinces the intention of the lawmaker to give to the judge, considering a motion for intervention, the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing said motion.
Applying herein the relevant rules and
jurisprudence, this Court finds no basis for granting Atty. Alobba’s
Motion for Leave to Intervene and for giving due course to her
Petition-in-Intervention.
First,
Atty. Alobba is not
a third person seeking to intervene in the present case. By her own admission, Atty. Alobba was an original
party in CA-G.R. SP No. 85959,
It should
be recalled that the subject of the instant Petition for Certiorari are the Resolutions, dated 25 October 2004 and 13
December 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85959. In the said Resolutions, the Court of Appeals
refused to dismiss CA-G.R. SP No. 85959 after finding that Africa did not
commit forum-shopping in filing the same; and issued a writ of preliminary
injunction against therein public and private respondents and their agents,
enjoining them from executing, enforcing, and implementing the Orders dated 8
July 2004, 26 July 2004, and 20 August 2004 of the SEC in SEC Case No.
12-03-03.
Only Nieto
filed a Petition for Certiorari, now
before this Court, challenging the Resolutions, dated
Atty. Alobba’s participation in the present Petition (prior to
her substitution) was nothing more than as counsel for Nieto. She signed the pleadings on behalf of her
client Nieto, and there was absolutely no showing that she had done so in
representation of herself or in her personal capacity. Her filing of a motion to intervene and a Petition-in-Intervention
only cements this Court’s finding that she did not personally join Nieto in
instituting the original Petition herein.
Atty. Alobba cannot use intervention as a substitute for her lost
remedy of certiorari. As this Court noted previously, she had
actively participated in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 85959 in representation of herself and her clients Nieto and Atty. Lokin. She does not
deny receiving copies of the Court of Appeals Resolutions, dated
Since Atty.
Alobba did not timely seek any relief from the
Resolutions, dated
Second,
Atty. Alobba also failed to convince this Court that
she has legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. The legal interest required for an
intervention must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply
contingent or expectant. It has been
held “that the interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between
other parties 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.”[34]
The original controversy in SEC Case
No. 12-03-03, from which this Petition arose, involves the holding of the
annual stockholders’ meeting and election of the members of the Board of
Directors of PHC, which can only take place after its parent companies, POTC
and PHILCOMSAT, hold their own annual stockholders’ meeting and election of the
members of their respective Boards of Directors. Atty. Alobba was
included as a private respondent in CA-G.R. SP No. 85959 as the alleged
Assistant Corporate Secretary of POTC and PHILCOMSAT. Irrefragably, she was made a party in her
capacity as an officer of the said corporations.
Atty. Alobba must remember that she has no personal stake in POTC
and PHILCOMSAT. She became an officer
thereof by virtue of the appointment by the Board of Directors of the said
corporations. However, the very
composition and authority of the Board of Directors that appointed her was
being questioned; and to settle the matter, Nieto,
Third, apparently, for some unexplained
reason, Atty. Alobba wants to keep the case pending
before this Court. Having been replaced
and having lost her personality to appear before this Court as Nieto’s counsel,
she now tries to intervene in her personal capacity, taking a position which is
blatantly opposed to that of her former client, Nieto, who is now seeking the
withdrawal of his Petition. This Court
thus exercises its discretion to deny the intervention when the same is for the
purpose of delaying the proceedings and making it only more complicated and
expensive.
The parties
to the original Petition, Nieto and
It may do
well for Atty. Alobba to remember that intervention
is only ancillary and supplementary to the existing litigation. Since the parties to the existing litigation
are already seeking an end thereto, Atty. Alobba cannot
be permitted to use her Petition-in-Intervention to replace the original
Petition sought to be withdrawn and, in effect, keep the litigation going. That this is her intention becomes manifest
after a perusal of her Petition-in-Intervention which substantially adopts and
extensively quotes from Nieto’s original Petition.
And finally, the fact that the case has been
submitted for resolution will not preclude the parties from amicably settling their
differences, and this Court from dismissing the case based thereon upon proper
motion by the parties.[36]
Submission of the case for resolution is the stage in the proceedings when the
parties are already deemed to have presented before the Court all the issues,
arguments, and evidence in support of their respective positions; and any
issue, argument, or evidence presented thereafter may no longer be entertained
by the Court. However, the Court, at
this point, has no resolution or decision yet on the case, and the same is
still far from being closed and terminated.
The Court still maintains its jurisdiction over the case and may still
accordingly act upon subsequent developments therein brought to its attention,
such as the amicable settlement of the dispute by the parties.
This Court finds it interesting that
Atty. Alobba would contend that it is already too
late for Nieto to withdraw his Petition at this point, yet she seeks to
intervene herein after Nieto filed,
through his new counsel, his Motion to Withdraw Petition. If it is true that this Court can no longer
entertain Nieto’s Motion to Withdraw Petition at this stage, then it is equally
true that it is also already deprived of authority to act on her motion to
intervene and Petition-in-Intervention filed much later. If there is anyone guilty of belatedly acting
on his/her rights, it is no one else but Atty. Alobba.
This Court, however, refrains from any
action on
With the express consent of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court RESOLVES to:
1. DENY the Motion for Leave to Intervene and DISMISS the Petition-in-Intervention filed by Atty. Alma Kristina
O. Alobba; and
2. GRANT
the Motion to Withdraw Petition
filed by petitioner Manuel H. Nieto, Jr. with the conformity of private
respondent, Victor A. Africa, and DISMISS
the present Petition for Certiorari.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Order, dated
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Presiding Justice (now Supreme Court Justice) Cancio C. Garcia and Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; id. at 131-132.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring; id. at 55-58.
[14]
[15]
[16] Resolution of the Second Division
dated
[17]
[18] Resolution of the Second Division dated
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Comment on the Leave to Intervene
and Petition-in-Intervention of Atty. Alobba.
[30] Opposition (to Motion for Leave to
Intervene).
[31]
[32] 67 Phil. 279, 282-283 (1939).
[33] Heirs
of Antonio Pael v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil.
222, 244 (2000); Firestone Tire and
Rubber Company of the
[34] Garcia v. David, supra. note 32 at 284.
[35] Philippine National Bank v. De la Cruz, 103 Phil. 341, 344 (1958).
[36] Briones, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 172 Phil. 451, 456 (1978); Manubay v. De Guzman, 122 Phil. 282, 284 (1965).