G.R. No. L-16501; January 31, 1961
Concordio A. Trazo, petitioner, vs. Manila Pencil Co., Inc., Director of Lands and The Hon. Arsenio Solidum, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondents.

FACTS

On October 19, 1959, the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Arsenio Solidum, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 39864 ordering the Director of Lands to execute a deed of sale over certain Friar Lands in favor of Manila Pencil Company, Inc. The Director of Lands initially appealed but the appeal was later dismissed. On November 6, 1959, Concordio A. Trazo filed an “Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene, To Set Aside the Decision and for New Trial.” Trazo alleged he was the actual occupant of a portion of the lot since 1949 under a sublease from Manila Pencil Company. He contended the decision was obtained through fraud, as the company misrepresented its occupancy and failed to give him proper notice of the case, depriving him of his day in court.
The respondent Judge denied Trazo’s omnibus motion on November 7, 1959, ruling that intervention is no longer permitted after judgment has been rendered. Trazo then filed the present petition for mandamus and certiorari, seeking to annul the judgment, suspend proceedings, and allow his intervention. He argued he was an indispensable party. Respondents opposed, with the Manila Pencil Company asserting Trazo was merely a tenant whose occupancy inured to its benefit and that his rights could be pursued separately.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Trazo’s motion for intervention filed after the trial court had already rendered its decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no abuse of discretion. The Court’s ruling was anchored on a strict interpretation of the Rules of Court governing intervention. Under Sections 1 and 3, Rule 13, intervention is permitted “at any period of a trial.” The Court, citing established jurisprudence (Felismeno v. Gloria, Bool v. Mendoza), construed this phrase to mean the period for the presentation of evidence by both parties. Consequently, intervention is not allowed after the trial has been concluded and a decision rendered (Goan v. Azores, El Hogar Filipino v. National Bank). Since Trazo filed his motion after the judgment was promulgated, it was filed out of time.
The Court further reasoned that Trazo was not an indispensable party to the original action between Manila Pencil Company and the Director of Lands, as he had no part in their agreement. Allowing intervention at that late stage would unduly prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights. Moreover, the decision in the main case had already become final and executory. The Court held that if Trazo possessed any actionable rights, such as a claim arising from his sublease or allegations of fraud, these could be fully protected in a separate proceeding. An independent action was the proper remedy, not a belated intervention in a concluded case.