Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 227 views

    Saw v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Reymart-Vin Maguliano
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that to intervene in a pending case, a party must have a legal interest in the matter being litigated or be adversely affected by the case's outcome. 2) The petitioners moved to intervene in a collection case filed by a bank against a corporation and its president, arguing the loans were unauthorized. 3) The motion to intervene was denied and upheld on appeal, as the petitioners' rights were being litigated in a separate SEC case and they would not be prejudiced by the denial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Saw v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Reymart-Vin Maguliano
    227 views1 page
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that to intervene in a pending case, a party must have a legal interest in the matter being litigated or be adversely affected by the case's outcome. 2) The petitioners moved to intervene in a collection case filed by a bank against a corporation and its president, arguing the loans were unauthorized. 3) The motion to intervene was denied and upheld on appeal, as the petitioners' rights were being litigated in a separate SEC case and they would not be prejudiced by the denial.

    Original Description:

    Saw

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled that to intervene in a pending case, a party must have a legal interest in the matter being litigated or be adversely affected by the case's outcome. 2) The petitioners moved to intervene in a collection case filed by a bank against a corporation and its president, arguing the loans were unauthorized. 3) The motion to intervene was denied and upheld on appeal, as the petitioners' rights were being litigated in a separate SEC case and they would not be prejudiced by the denial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    227 views1 page

    Saw v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Reymart-Vin Maguliano
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that to intervene in a pending case, a party must have a legal interest in the matter being litigated or be adversely affected by the case's outcome. 2) The petitioners moved to intervene in a collection case filed by a bank against a corporation and its president, arguing the loans were unauthorized. 3) The motion to intervene was denied and upheld on appeal, as the petitioners' rights were being litigated in a separate SEC case and they would not be prejudiced by the denial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. 90580             April 8, 1991 In the case of Magsaysay-Labrador v.

    Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that to be


    permitted to intervene in a pending action, the party must have a legal interest in the matter
    RUBEN SAW, DIONISIO SAW, LINA S. CHUA, LUCILA S. RUSTE AND in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, or he must
    EVELYN SAW, petitioners,  be so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of the
    vs. property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof."
    HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO P. PARDO, Presiding Judge of
    Branch 43, (Regional Trial Court of Manila), FREEMAN MANAGEMENT AND To allow intervention, [a] it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter
    DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, in litigation, or otherwise qualified; and [b] consideration must be given as to whether the
    FREEMAN INCORPORATED, SAW CHIAO LIAN, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether
    OF CALOOCAN CITY, and DEPUTY SHERIFF ROSALIO G. SIGUA, respondents. the intervenor's rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. Both requirements
    must concur as the first is not more important than the second.
    FACTS:
    The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in
    A collection suit with preliminary attachment was filed by Equitable Banking Corporation the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will
    against Freeman, Inc. and Saw Chiao Lian, its President and General Manager. either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if
    persons not parties of the action could be allowed to intervene, proceedings will become
    Saw, et al. moved to intervene alleging that the loan transactions between Saw Chiao Lian unnecessarily complicated, expensive and interminable. And this is not the policy of the
    and Equitable Banking Corp. were not approved by the stockholders representing at least law.
    2/3 of corporate capital and that Saw ChiaoLian had no authority to contract such loans.
    The Court observes that even with the denial of the petitioners' motion to intervene,
    The motion to intervene was denied, and Saw, et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals. nothing is really lost to them. The denial did not necessarily prejudice them as their rights
    are being litigated in the case now before the Securities and Exchange Commission and
    may be fully asserted and protected in that separate proceeding.
    Meanwhile, Equitable and Saw ChiaoLian entered into a compromise agreement which
    they submitted to and was approved by the lower court. But because it was not complied
    with, Equitable secured a writ of execution, and two lots owned by Freeman, Inc. were
    levied upon and sold at public auction.

    The Court of Appeals sustained the denial of Saw, et al. motion for intervention, holding
    that intervention is proper only when one's right is actual, material, direct and immediate
    and not simply contingent or expectant.

    ISSUE:

    WON Saw, et al. have the right to intervene in the case.

    HELD:

    NO.

    After examining the issues and arguments of the parties, the Court finds that the respondent
    court committed no reversible error in sustaining the denial by the trial court of Saw, et al.
    motion for intervention.

    You might also like