GR 172448; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172448 ; February 22, 2012
THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY represented by its Chairman, Petitioner, vs. ABEDIN LIMPAO OSOP, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Abedin Limpao Osop, a retired professor, was appointed as a substitute faculty member at Mindanao State University-General Santos City (MSU-GSC) in 1994. His appointment was renewed yearly, with the last one effective until December 31, 1997. He continued teaching thereafter. In 1998, Chancellor Macapado A. Muslim terminated Osop’s services, citing the return of the permanent faculty member and the expiration of his temporary appointment. Osop filed a Complaint for Injunction with Damages against Muslim and the Dean before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in Osop’s favor, declaring his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement and payment of backwages. Muslim filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC’s orders.
During the pendency of Muslim’s petition before the CA, the MSU Board of Regents (BOR) filed a Motion for Intervention, arguing it was an indispensable party as the governing body that approved appointments. The CA denied the motion, declaring it a “stray pleading” because it was filed beyond the reglementary period for filing an appeal or a petition for certiorari from the RTC’s final orders. The CA subsequently dismissed Muslim’s petition. The BOR then filed the present Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Motion for Intervention filed by the MSU Board of Regents in the certiorari proceedings initiated by Chancellor Muslim.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the BOR’s petition. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgments and the proper modes of appeal. The RTC’s decision, which became final and executory as to the MSU (as represented by its officials sued in their official capacity), could no longer be appealed or assailed via a petition for certiorari by the university. The BOR’s attempt to intervene in the CA was a belated effort to circumvent this finality.
Intervention is not an independent proceeding but an ancillary remedy. A would-be intervenor must show a legal interest in the matter in litigation. However, this right is subject to the timeliness of the intervention. The BOR sought to intervene only after the RTC’s decision had attained finality as to the university. Since the period to appeal or to file a petition for certiorari from the RTC’s final orders had long expired, the BOR’s motion was correctly deemed a “stray pleading.” It was an improper substitute for a lost appeal. The BOR, having slept on its rights, could not graft its claim onto Muslim’s timely petition. Consequently, the BOR lacked the personality to question the CA’s judgment.