GR 102927; (October, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102927 October 12, 1993
BIG COUNTRY RANCH CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MAX B. PALARCA and GOLDEN FLAME SAWMILL CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Max B. Palarca filed a complaint for the recovery of two barges named “Bangsi” and “Dangsol” from the Philippine Coast Guard and sought a writ of replevin. The trial court issued the writ after Palarca posted a bond. The sheriff reported that the barges in custody were named “BCRC I” and “BCRC II,” prompting the court to order a re-measurement. Respondent Golden Flame Sawmill Corporation moved to intervene, claiming ownership of the barges acquired from petitioner Big Country Ranch Corporation in a public auction, evidenced by a certificate of sale, and was allowed to intervene. Petitioner also filed a motion to intervene, claiming ownership based on documents from its purchase of barges from Mahogany Products (Phil.) Inc. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion, finding it had no legal interest in the litigation because the barges had been sold at auction, and that intervention would unduly delay the case or prejudice the original parties, with petitioner’s rights protectable in a separate proceeding. The court also ordered the release of the barges to Palarca upon the replevin bond. Petitioner’s petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was dismissed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for leave to intervene.
RULING
No, the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion. The right to intervene is not absolute and is permissive under Section 2(a), Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The trial court’s denial was based on findings that petitioner had no legal interest in the matter in litigation, as the barges had been sold at public auction to respondent corporation; that intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties; and that petitioner’s rights, if any, could be fully protected in a separate proceeding. These findings had rational bases. Furthermore, intervention is only allowed before or during a trial; at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision, the main action was already final and executory, leaving no pending proceeding for intervention. The petition was denied and the Court of Appeals’ judgment affirmed.