"x x x.
Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Who may intervene. – A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
In Alfelor v. Halasan,[63] the Court held that:
Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed when a person has (1) a legal interest in the matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of the parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof.[64]
Jurisprudence describes intervention as “a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings.”[65] “The right to intervene is not an absolute right; it may only be permitted by the court when the movant establishes facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing it.”[66]
While undoubtedly, MSU has a legal interest in the outcome of the case, it may not avail itself of the remedy of intervention in CA-G.R. SP No. 82052 simply because MSU is not a third party in the proceedings herein.
In Osop’s Amended Complaint before the RTC, MSU was already impleaded as one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 6381. MSU came under the jurisdiction of the RTC when it was served with summons. It participated in Civil Case No. 6381, where it was represented by Atty. Fontanilla, counsel for Muslim and Ramos, who was deputized by the OSG as counsel for MSU. MSU adopted the Answer to the Amended Complaint of its co-defendants, Muslim and Ramos, and also joined Muslim and Ramos in subsequent pleadings filed before the RTC in Civil Case No. 6381. Evidently, the rights and interests of MSU were duly presented before the RTC in Civil Case No. 6381. Unfortunately, the RTC issued the Orders dated March 20, 2003 and August 21, 2003 in Civil Case No. 6381 adverse to MSU and its co-defendants, Muslim and Ramos.
