CASE DIGEST : Saw v. CA

 G.R. No. 90580             April 8, 1991

RUBEN SAW, DIONISIO SAW, LINA S. CHUA, LUCILA S. RUSTE AND EVELYN SAW, petitioners,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO P. PARDO, Presiding Judge of Branch 43, (Regional Trial Court of Manila), FREEMAN MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, FREEMAN INCORPORATED, SAW CHIAO LIAN, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CALOOCAN CITY, and DEPUTY SHERIFF ROSALIO G. SIGUA, respondents.

FACTS: A collection suit with preliminary attachment was filed by Equitable Banking Corporation against Freeman, Inc. and Saw Chiao Lian, its President and General Manager. The petitioners moved to intervene. Meanwhile, Equitable and Saw Chiao Lian entered into a compromise agreement which they submitted to and was app roved by the lower court. The Court of Appeals1 sustained the denial of the petitioners' motion for intervention.  It also ruled against the petitioners' argument that because they had already filed a notice of appeal, the trial judge had lost jurisdiction over the case and could no longer issue the writ of execution.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in holding that the petitioner cannot intervene and did not divest the RTC its jurisdiction over the case

HELD: Intervention is "an act or proceeding by which a third person is permitted to become a party to an action or proceeding between other persons, and which results merely in the addition of a new party or parties to an original action, for the purpose of hearing and determining at the same time all conflicting claims which may be made to the subject matter in litigation”. It is not an independent proceeding, but an ancillary and supplemental one which, in the nature of things, unless otherwise provided for by the statute or Rules of Court, must be in subordination to the main proceeding. The Court observes that even with the denial of the petitioners' motion to intervene, 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