FERNANDEZ vs.

COURT OF APPEALS

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J. February 19, 2013.]

FACTS
Complainants Ethelwoldo Fernandez, and Antonio Henson were elected to the board
of directors of NADECOR. In a regular stockholder’s meeting where two groups were vying
for control over the company, Calalang, De Jesus, Romulo, Ayala, Lazatin, Fernandez,
Nitorreda, Engle were Elected. Gatmaitan was also elected as Corporate Secretary.
Thereafter, Ricafort/s, claiming to be stockholders of record, sought to annul the said
meeting held. They filed a complaint before the RTC of PASIG. Ricafort/s alleged that they
were not given due notice of the said meeting thus they were not present and were not
able to exercise their right. RTC agreed with the Ricaforts. Four separate Petition for
Certiorari were filed by the members of the board with the CA, all with application for a
TRO and/or preliminary injunction. The CA denied such applications, but on the same day
nevertheless, the 11th division issued a TRO. During the effectivity of the TRO, the old Board
of Directors assumed the functions of the new one in order to prevent any hiatus and not to
prejudice the corporation. All the CA petitions were consolidated as well as the other
cases. On February 17, 2012, the respondents Ricafort filed their Comment Ad Cautelam to
the petition in CA-G.R. No. 122784. The petitioners therein thereafter filed three (3) urgent
motions to resolve their application for writ of preliminary injunction, on March 8, on May 22,
and again on June 6, 2012. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction was granted by the CA 14th
Division, which not for long was questioned. Complainants filed with the Supreme Court a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, seeking to annul the writ of preliminary injunction
issued by the CA’s Special 14th Division. Complainants also filed an Administrative case
against the Justices of the 14th Division of the CA. Alleged in this administrative complaint
that the respondent Justices are guilty of grave misconduct, conduct detrimental to the
service, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and manifest partiality.

ISSUE:
Whether Complainant have the legal personality to assail the writ of preliminary injunction
issued by the CA 14th Division

Ruling:
No. Complainant does not have the legal personality to assail the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the CA 14th Division.
Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that 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. Conversely, a person who is not a party in the main suit cannot be
bound by an ancillary writ, such as a preliminary injunction. Indeed, he cannot be affected
by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.
Moreover, a person not an aggrieved party in the original proceedings that gave rise to the
petition for certiorari, will not be permitted to bring the said action to annul or stay the
injurious writ. Such is the clear import of Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus,
a person not a party to the proceedings in the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain an
action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the judgment reviewed. Stated differently,
if a petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not a party in the lower court,
he has no standing to question the assailed order.
The complainants, who at various times served as elected members of the Board of
NADECOR, did not bother to intervene in the CA petitions, hence, they are not entitled to
the service of pleadings and motions therein. Complainant Fernandez was himself a
defendant in SEC Case No. 11-164 in the RTC, but he chose not to join any of the four CA
petitions.