MOTION TO INTERVENE
THE UNDERSIGNED MOVANTS, by counsel, respectfully state:
I. THE MOVANTS.
1. The Movants are homeowners and tenants of the xxx SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (XXX).
2. For convenience and for purposes of brevity and conciseness of the presentation of the contents of this motion, the names and personal circumstances of the Movants are enumerated in the attached “List of Movants”, marked as Annex “xxx” hereof.
2.1. It will be noted that the total number of the Movants is more than __________________ (____).
2.2. It is not advisable to enumerate all the names and personal circumstances of the Movants in Par. 1, supra, or in this particular Par. 2 of this Motion, because the very long list thereof would consume so many pages in the body of this Motion such that the reader of the Motion would unnecessarily suffer from vision and mental fatigue and psychological boredom just to go over the long list.
II. THE COMPLAINT.
3. NATURE. - The Complaint (denominated as “Petition” by Plaintiff) is one for INJUNCTION.
4. PRAYER. – It prays for a judgment permanently restraining the Defendants from:
4.1. Opening the pipes that the Defendants had installed in order to supply water to the residents of Xxx Subdivision;
4.2. Further installing additional components to the pipe system that they had set up’
5. Further, it prays for a judgment ordering the Defendants to remove the pipe system that they had set up.
6. Furthermore, it prays for attorney’s fee:
6.1. Acceptance Fee of PXXX; and
6.2. Appearance Fee of PXXX per hearing.
7. The basic allegations of the Plaintiff in the Complaint are as follows:
7.1. That the Plaintiff is a Multi-Purpose Cooperative;
7.2. That the xxx Board of Directors of XXX allowed the conversion of its Water Committee into a Cooperative (which is now the Plaintiff-Cooperative XXX).
7.3. That the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) ordered in xxx the conduct of a Referendum among the XXX members to ratify the right of the Plaintiff to control and operate the Water System of the Xxx Subdivision.
7.4. That the xxx Referendum ratified the power of the Plaintiff-Cooperative to control and operate the said Water System.
7.5. The Plaintiff knows of the existence of Board Resolution No. xxx, dated xxx, REVOKING Board Resolution No. xxx and Board Resolution No. xxx. See Annex “xxx”, Complaint.
7.5.1. Board Resolution No. xxx, dated xxx, was adopted by the XXX Board of Directors led by Defendant Xxx (President).
7.5.2. The Plaintiff does not recognize it.
7.5.3. The Plaintiff honors only the two (2) xxx board resolutions of the XXX Board of Directors – i.e.:
(a) Board Resolution No. xxx and
(b) Board Resolution No. xxx,
which converted the XXX Water Committee into a Cooperative (which is now the Plaintiff).
7.6. That in March xxx the Defendants installed new pipe lines for the above purpose with the intent to operate and control the Water System of the Subdivision.
7.7. That the Plaintiff would suffer financial losses if no injunction is issued against them.
8. Clarificatory Notes:
8.1. The Manila Water Co., Inc. (MWCI) in xxx dealt with XXX, by way of bulk water service agreement, to distribute water among the homeowners of the Xxx Subdivision.
8.2. As of the time of filing with this Court of the instant Complaint in March xxx, the Defendants (“Xxx Board”) were the ones officially dealing with, and being honored by, the MWCI for the distribution of water to and the collection of payments by the homeowners, by way of bulk water service agreement.
8.3. The water controversy in the Subdivision has affected the elections of the XXX Directors and Officers for some years now.
8.3.1. There are two (2) competing Boards of Directors of XXX.
8.3.2. One is led by the group of Xxx Xxx, who is affiliated with the Plaintiff-Cooperative.
8.3.3. The other is the group of Defendants Xxx Xxx, et. al.
III. THE COMMENT (ANSWER).
9. The pro se Comment (Answer), dated xxx, of the Defendant prays for the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of merit.
10. The Defendants allege in their pro se Comment (Answer):
10.1. That the Defendants constitute the legitimate incumbent Board of Directors of XXX.
10.1.1. The next regular annual election of XXX will be held in xxx.
10.2. That the Defendants have been holding office at the official XXX Office in the Xxx Subdivision.
10.3. That the Defendants started early this year to gradually install a water pipes system in the Subdivision in preparation for the closure ordered by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) of the existing centralized water pump system owned by xxx (a Co-Defendant).
10.3.1. The Xxx Water System (MWS) has been engaged in the business of distributing water to different homes in the Subdivision since 1998 (apparently without the necessary Permit to Operate from the NWRB).
10.4. That the Defendants were not guilty of the crime of water pilferage.
10.4.1. They were duly authorized by the MWCI-XXX bulk water service agreement:
(a) To distribute water in the Subdivision,
(b) To collect the payments of the homeowners, and
(c) To install and operate an improved water pipes system (water reticulation system) in the Subdivision,
being the legitimate incumbent Directors and Officers of the Board of Directors of XXX with whom the MWCI was officially transacting business as the legal representatives and elected Directors and Officers of XXX.
10.5. That the MWCI did not grant unto the Plaintiff the power and authority to distribute the MWCI water supply to the residents of the Subdivision.
10.5.1. The said power and authority were granted by the MWCI only to the XXX, acting thru its legitimate incumbent Board of Directors.
10.6. That it was illegal for the XXX Board to divert the MCWI water supply to a third business entity, i.e., the Plaintiff, without the consent of the MWCI.
10.7. That the resolutions of the XXX Board converting the XXX Water Committee into a Cooperative (i.e., the Plaintiff), without the consent of all homeowners and for the private profit and benefit of the Plaintiff, was illegal.
10.8. That MCWI-XXX bulk water service contract prohibited the RESALE by XXX of the MWCI water supply to any unauthorized third party-water concessionaire, i.e., the Plaintiff.
10.9. That the xxx HLURB Decision cited by the Plaintiff in its Complaint, which purportedly recognized the Plaintiff as the authorized water operator/supplier in the Subdivision, was unjust; and that the xxx referendum was deceitfully manipulated by the Plaintiff.
10.9.1. It was seasonably appealed by Defendant xxx (the derivative suit Complainant-Appellant therein who acted for the benefit of XXX) to the Court of Appeals. (Cf. R.A. No. 9904, Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Associations).
10.9.2. Defendant Xxx and XXX later withdrew the said appeal because the issues therein had become moot and academic by the subsequent ratification by 70% of the XXX members of the authority of the Defendants to control and operate the water system of the Subdivision (not the Plaintiff).
10.10. That 70% of XXX members had rejected the right of the Plaintiff to control and operate the water system of XXX.
10.11. That in a conciliation conference among the parties and a lawyer for MWCI held at the HLURB in xxx, it was agreed that the “water reticulation system inside the Subdivision” was the responsibility of XXX (i.e., the Defendants) and that the responsibility of MWCI was the “bulk water supply connection.”
10.12. That the water system of the Subdivision is owned by XXX Homeowners Association. The Plaintiff does not own it.
10.13. That the Defendants were officially and effectively managing the XXX water system as of the early part of xxx, pursuant to its MWCI bulk water service contract, when the Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint and when the Court restrained the Defendants (i.e., incumbent XXX Board) from performing their lawful duties as Directors and Officers of XXX insofar as the protecting and operating the XXX Water System of the Subdivision was concerned.
IV. THE ISSUES.
11. The Plaintiff believes that the issues are:
(a) Whether the Defendants should be restrained from proceeding with their pipes installation;
(b) Whether the Defendants should be restrained from opening up their installed pipe lines to supply the Xxx Subdivision residents; and
(c) Whether the Defendants should be ordered to remove the pipes that they had installed.
12. The Defendants submit that the basic and real issue is:
Who between the Plaintiff (Cooperative) and the Defendants (incumbent elected XXX Directors and Offices) has the legal right to mange, control, and operate the Water System of the Xxx Subdivision.
V. THE LEGAL INTEREST TO INTERVENE.
13.The Movants have a LEGAL INTEREST (a) in the matter in litigation and (b) in the success of the Defendants.
13.1. The Defendants are the duly elected incumbent Directors and Officers of the XXX.
13.2. They are the genuine leaders of XXX.
13.3. The Movants respect, honor, and obey the official actions, decisions, and resolution of the Defendants as incumbent Directors and Officers of XXX.
13.4. The actions, decisions and resolutions of the Defendants as incumbent Directors and Officers of XXX are intended to preserve and promote the general welfare of the homeowners of the Xxx Subdivision.
13.5. As homeowners of the Xxx Subdivision, the Movants are members and voters XXX.
13.5.1. As homeowners of the Xxx Subdivision and as members/voters of XXX, the Movants have a legal interest:
184.108.40.206. To insure that the water service receivables of XXX from the homeowners are duly recorded and protected and are not illegally paid to the Plaintiff;
220.127.116.11. To protect, preserve and maintain the Water System of the Xxx Subdivision that XXX owns;
18.104.22.168. To preserve the unity of command and leadership of the incumbent Board of Directors of XXX for the good of the Community;
22.214.171.124. To see to it that the official actions, decisions, and resolutions of the Defendants as the duly elected incumbent Directors and Offices of XXX are enforced.
(More particularly: The xxx Board Resolutions of the incumbent XXX Board of Directors and the Mass Ratification of a great majority of the homeowners REVOKING the authority of the Plaintiff to operate the Water System of the Xxx Subdivision);
126.96.36.199. To prevent the escalation of demoralization, disunity, and confusion being caused by the Plaintiff with respect to the ownership, possession, control and operation of the Water System of the Xxx Subdivision;
188.8.131.52. To stop the Plaintiff from further acts of harassment, abuse, threats, intimidation, coercion, disconnection of the water service, and illegal removal, destruction and taking of the water meters of the dissenting homeowners, resulting in great sufferings and inconvenience on the part of the innocent families of the dissenting homeowners.
13.6. The Plaintiff alleges that the past and present official actions, decisions and resolutions of the Defendants as the incumbent Directors and Officers of XXX in relation to the Water System, which XXX owns, are illegal.
13.6.1. On the basis of such an allegation the Plaintiff seeks a Judgment of Injunction and Damages against the Defendants.
13.7. Any Judgment for Injunction and Damages adverse to the Defendants that might be promulgated by the Court after trial will adversely affect:
13.7.1. The funds, assets, and networth of XXX;
13.7.2. The ownership rights of XXX with respect to the administration and protection of the Water System of the Xxx Subdivision (i.e., right to enjoy, right to possess, right to administer, right to protect, etc.);
13.7.3. The organizational, financial, and administrative status of XXX; and
13.7.4. The common good, general welfare, aspirations, and quality of life of the Movants and the rest of the homeowners of the Xxx Subdivision and their families.
14.The Movants are so situated as to be adversely affected:
14.1.1. By the final judgment and any and all incidental or interlocutory orders issued and to be issued by the Court in the course of the past, present and future proceedings of this case, especially if the same are favorable to the Plaintiff and adverse to the Defendants;
14.1.2. By any judgment or order of distribution or other disposition of the property involved in this case, especially the Water System of the Xxx Subdivision which is owned by XXX and its members.
15. This motion is seasonably filed in the sense that, as of this time, this case is still in its initial or preliminary stage.
15.1. It has not been set yet for Pre-Trial Conference.
15.2. It has not been referred yet to the Mediation Center.
15.3. It has not been set yet for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR).
15.4. The Plaintiff has not yet commenced the presentation of its evidence-in-chief.
16.This motion, if granted, will not unduly delay this case.
16.1. It will not prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the Plaintiff.
17. The rights of the Movants can only be fully protected if the Court (a) would grant this motion to intervene and (b) would grant their motion of the Movants for a 15-day period to file their “Joint Answer-in-Intervention” so that they could thereafter formally participate in the trial of this case to prove the merits of their intervention.
VI. RULE 19 (INTERVENTION).
18. In fine, Sec. 1, Rule 19 (Intervention) of the Rules of Court provides that a person:
(a) Who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or
(b) Who has a legal interest in the success of either of the parties, or
(c) Who has an interest against both, or
(d) Who 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.
VII. THE 15-DAY PERIOD PRAYED FOR HEREIN.
19. It will be noted that although Rule 19 states that the Answer-in-Intervention should be attached to the Motion, nothing in said Rule:
19.1. Expressly and absolutely prohibits the Movants from praying for an additional time of 15 days, counted from receipt of the Order of the Court granting this motion, to file their “ Joint Answer-In-Intervention”.
19.2. Expressly and absolutely prohibits the Court from exercising its sound judicial discretion to give to the Movants the reasonable 15-day period referred to in the foregoing paragraph to file their “ Joint Answer-In-Intervention”, in the interest of fair play and justice.
20. The Movants and their Counsel would need sufficient time to hold collective and individual meetings, discussions, planning sessions, and workshops (a) to review, develop and prepare their theory, defenses, evidence, witnesses, and other relevant legal presentations and (b) to conduct further legal research to prepare an intelligent “Joint Answer-In-Intervention”.
21. This Motion for a 15-day period to file the Movant’s “Joint Answer-in-Intervention” is not intended to delay this case but is being made solely for the foregoing reasons.
21.1. Please note that this case is still in its preliminary or initial stage and will not be prejudiced by the 15-day period prayed for in this Motion.
WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of justice, the Movants respectfully pray that, after notice and hearing, an ORDER be issued:
1. Granting the Movants the right to INTERVENE as Defendants-in-Intervention; and
2. Giving the Movants a period of 15 days to file their “Joint Answer-in-Intervention”, counted from receipt of the Order granting this Motion.
FURTHER, the Movants respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
xxx City, xxx, 2015.