Board of Regents of MSU v. Osop, G.R. No. 172448, February 22, 2012

Caleb Josh T.
Pacana
47. BOARD OF REGENTS OF MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY v. ABEDIN LIMPAO OSOP
GR No. 172448, 2012-02-22
Topic: Jurisprudence on intervention

Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Facts:
Respondent Abedin Limpao Osop (Osop) is the former Chancellor of the Mindanao State University-
General Santos City (MSU-GSC) campus. Osop retired in 1987 under the Early Retirement Law, but
several years after his retirement, he was appointed by Moner M. Bajunaid,... then MSU-GSC Chancellor,
as a substitute for another professor of the Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, of
MSU-GSC, who was on study leave. Osop's appointment took effect on July 1, 1994.[2]
In 1997, Muslim, the succeeding Chancellor of MSU-GSC, renewed Osop's appointment as Assistant
Professor IV, effective January 1, 1997 until December 31, 1997. His appointment was duly noted by the
MSU Board of Regents during its 166th Meeting held at DECS Conference Room,... U.L. Complex,
Meralco Avenue, Pasig City, on February 19, 1997.[3]
Muslim allowed Osop to continue teaching at MSU-GSC even after December 31, 1997. On April 17,
1998, Muslim issued Special Order No. 144-98C designating Osop as Chairperson of the Electrical
Engineering Department, College of Engineering, of MSU-GSC, with a term of office... from April 18, 1998
to April 17, 1999, unless revoked or amended by competent authority.[4]
However, on July 15, 1998, Muslim caused to be served upon the College of Engineering and other
offices of MSU-GSC a letter[5] dated July 14, 1998 addressed to Osop that reads in full:
Dear Prof. Osop:
In view of the return to the campus of Prof. Danilo Dadula for whom you have been serving as substitute
since July 1, 1994, and considering the expiration of your temporary appointment last December 31,
1997, I regret to inform you that your services with the university will... have to end. And since I am not
renewing your appointment, you are hereby advised to cease from reporting to duty effective
immediately. Moreover, you should clear yourself from monetary and other official accountabilities
with the university.
On behalf of MSU-GSC, we thank you for your services.
Very truly yours,... (signed)
MACAPADO A. MUSLIM, Ph. D.
Chancellor
MSU, through the OSG, filed before the Court of Appeals a Motion to Intervene (with Motion to Admit
Memorandum) in CA-G.R. SP No. 82052.[55] Osop opposed the intervention of MSU.[56]
The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 82052 on March 14, 2006, dismissing
Muslim's Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.[57] It held that:
At the outset this case was deemed submitted for decision on October 6, 2004. On January 10, 2005,
this Court received a Motion to Intervene (with Motion to Admit Memorandum) filed by Mindanao State
University (MSU) through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG). However, Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, allows intervention only at any time before
rendition of judgment by the trial court, and We hold the motion to intervene is a stray pleading and is
deemed not filed.
Issues:
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR INTERVENTION
WAS IMPROVIDENTLY FILED.
Ruling:
MSU anchors its right to intervene on Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. MSU stresses that it has a
legal interest in the controversy considering that, ultimately, it will be the one liable for the relief Osop
prays for, particularly, Osop's reinstatement at
MSU-GSC.
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.
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.
MSU, on its part, neither filed an appeal nor a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals to
challenge the adverse RTC Orders. MSU sat on its rights. Despite receiving on September 2, 2003[67] a
copy of the RTC Order... dated August 21, 2003 (denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC
Order dated March 20, 2003 filed by MSU, together with Muslim and Ramos) in Civil Case No. 6381,
MSU did not act until it filed its Motion for Intervention on January 14, 2005[68] in CA-G.R. SP No.
82052, after an interval of 16 months. Evidently, it was already way beyond the reglementary period for
MSU to file an appeal (15 days)[69] or a Petition for Certiorari (60 days).[70] The RTC Orders dated
March 20, 2003 and August 21, 2003 had already become final and executory as to MSU. It cannot now
circumvent the finality of the RTC Orders by seeking to intervene in CA-G.R. SP No. 82052 and thereby,
to unduly benefit from the... timely action taken by Muslim, who alone, filed the Petition in CA-G.R. SP
No. 82052.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no further need to address the other assignment of errors of
MSU. Given that the Court of Appeals did not allow MSU to intervene in CA-G.R. SP No. 82052, it has no
personality to question the judgment of the appellate court in this... case.

Board of Regents of MSU v. Osop, G.R. No. 172448, February 22, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Board of Regents of MSU v. Osop, G.R. No. 172448, February 22, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Board of Regents of MSU v. Osop, G.R. No. 172448, February 22, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caleb Josh T.

47. BOARD OF REGENTS OF MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY v. ABEDIN LIMPAO OSOP

GR No. 172448, 2012-02-22

Topic: Jurisprudence on intervention

Dear Prof. Osop:

On behalf of MSU-GSC, we thank you for your services.

Very truly yours,... (signed)

MACAPADO A. MUSLIM, Ph. D.

Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:

You might also like