[Lopez] G.R. No. 111159 June 10, 2003 8. CA: affirmed the RTC decision.
8. CA: affirmed the RTC decision. Hence, petitioners elevated this case
NORDIC ASIA LIMITED and BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NAM UNG MARINE CO., KIM JEONG SEONG,
et. al., respondents.
Topic: Intervention
Doctrine: Requirements for Intervention:
a. it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter
in litigation; and
b. consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or
whether or not the intervenors rights may be protected in a
separate proceeding
Facts:
1. Sextant Maritime (Sextant) borrowed money from petitioners Nordic
and Bankers Trust. Sextant used the money to buy the vessel M/V
Fylyppa. As security, they constituted a mortgage over M/V
Fylyppa. Sextant, however, eventually defaulted. Hence, petitioners
instituted extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.
2. Respondents Nam Ung Marine Co., the manning agent of the vessel,
and the 27 crew members of such vessel, filed a collection case
claiming for unpaid wages, overtime pay, etc. They impleaded M/V
Fylyppa (the vessel), Sextant (owner of vessel), Jibfair Shopping
(local ship agent), and other related parties.
3. Upon learning of such collection case, Nordic Asia and Bankers
Trust filed a motion for leave to intervene, alleging that petitioners
held a mortgage over the vessel, and that their intervention is for the
purpose of opposing the respondents unfounded and grossly
exaggerated claims. The intervention was GRANTED.
4. Jibfair Shipping filed an MTD, and all other impleaded parties were
declared in default. Hence, respondents were ordered to present
evidence ex-parte.
5. Respondents presented their evidence. In all four evidence hearings,
petitioners, as intervenors, did not attend any of the hearings.
Instead, petitioners filed an MR and/or motion to expunge ex-parte
evidence, stating that they purposely did not appear as he did not
want to waive petitioners right to question proceedings.
6. RTC: in favor of respondents and ordered the companies to pay the
wages and expenses. Petitioners appealed the decision to the CA.
7. RTC then issued an order of execution pending appeal. In reply,
petitioner filed another case for certiorari, questioning the execution
pending appeal.
to the SC through a petition for review on certiorari.
9. The Court deemed it necessary to rule on the standing of petitioners
to intervene despite not being raised as an assigned error.
Issue: W/N petitioners had the right to intervene. No.
Held:
1. Petitioners complaint-in-intervention plainly shows that petitioners
intention in intervening was to solely to oppose the claims of
respondents. The reason is obvious. The higher the claims awarded
to respondents in the collection case, which would be recovered from
the attached vessel, the lesser the amount petitioners can obtain
from their extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings given that
respondents lien is superior to petitioners mortgage lien.
2. The complaint-in-intervention merely alleged that petitioners possess
a mortgage lien and that petitioners are so situated as to be
adversely affected by respondents collection case. Being just a
mortgagee, the cause of action lies with the vessel and mortgagor,
and not with a co-claimant.
3. However, petitioners did not intervene to make a claim against the
respondents, but merely to oppose their claims. Petitioners were
unable to allege what specific act or omission can be attributed to
respondents, which violated petitioners rights. Petitioners simply
made a conclusionary statement that, by reason of their mortgage
lien, they are so situated as to be adversely affected by the collection
case. The complaint-in-intervention, therefore, failed to state a cause
of action.
4. Requirements for Intervention:
a. it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the
matter in litigation; and
b. consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication
of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or
prejudiced, or whether or not the intervenors rights may be
protected in a separate proceeding
5. With respect to the first requisite, interest which entitles a person
to intervene in a suit between other parties must be in the matter in
litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the
intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect
of the judgment. Petitioners do not own the vessel, but merely hold a
mortgage lien over it. Consequently, whatever judgment is rendered
1avvphi 1
in the collection case against the vessel is not of such a direct and
 immediate character that the intervenor would either gain or lose by
direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.
6. Assuming judgment is rendered against the vessel, petitioners are
not precluded from proceeding with their foreclosure of the vessel.
While there is a chance that petitioners would not be able fully to
satisfy their claims due to respondents preferred claims, the effect is
merely indirect as it is contingent upon two eventualities: 1)
petitioners being able successfully to foreclose on the vessel; and 2)
the proceeds of the sale being insufficient to cover the loan amount.
7. With respect to the second requisite, petitioners rights were
already protected through their extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings.
There was no exigency to grant the intervention. On the other hand,
respondents rights have been unduly delayed or prejudiced by the
intervention.
8. The purpose of intervention is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay
the placid operation of the machinery of trial, but merely to afford one
not an original party, yet having a certain right or interest in the
pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could
assert or protect such right or interest. By being admitted as
intervenors, petitioners were able to elevate the collection case all
the way to this Court to contest the award of damages that was not
directed against them but against the main defendants who did not
appeal from the judgment.

Petitioners committed forum shopping

1. In addition to petitioners lack of legal interest, this Court finds further
justification to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners have
violated the rule against forum shopping.
2. The appellants brief, as well as the certiorari case filed in the Court
of Appeals both prayed for the annulment of the RTCs decision
granting the award to respondents, and the granting of an execution
pending appeal, as well as the annulment of the ex-parte evidence.
3. It is quite apparent that when petitioners initiated the two actions
before the Court of Appeals, purportedly seeking separately to
reverse the two rulings, petitioners deliberately prayed for the
reversal of both rulings in each of the cases. This is a precise
instance of forum-shopping wherein petitioners have filed multiple
cases hoping that one or the other case will be a favorable
disposition.