Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
precedents. 86 It, <strong>the</strong>refore, behooves this Court to relax <strong>the</strong> rules on standing and to resolve <strong>the</strong><br />
issues presented by it.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> same vein, when dealing with class suits filed in behalf <strong>of</strong> all citizens, persons intervening<br />
m<strong>us</strong>t be sufficiently numero<strong>us</strong> to fully protect <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> all concerned 87 to enable <strong>the</strong> court<br />
to deal properly with all interests involved in <strong>the</strong> suit, 88 for a judgment in a class suit, whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
favorable or unfavorable to <strong>the</strong> class, is, under <strong>the</strong> res judicata principle, binding on all members<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> class whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>y were before <strong>the</strong> court. 89 Where it clearly appears that not all<br />
interests can be sufficiently represented as shown by <strong>the</strong> divergent issues raised in <strong>the</strong> numero<strong>us</strong><br />
petitions before this Court, G.R. No. 160365 as a class suit ought to fail. Since petitioners<br />
additionally allege standing as citizens and taxpayers, however, <strong>the</strong>ir petition will stand.<br />
The Philippine Bar Association, in G.R. No. 160403, invokes <strong>the</strong> sole ground <strong>of</strong> transcendental<br />
importance, while Atty. Dioscoro U. Vallejos, in G.R. No. 160397, is mum on his standing.<br />
There being no doctrinal definition <strong>of</strong> transcendental importance, <strong>the</strong> following instructive<br />
determinants formulated by former Supreme Court J<strong>us</strong>tice Florentino P. Feliciano are instructive:<br />
(1) <strong>the</strong> character <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> funds or o<strong>the</strong>r assets involved in <strong>the</strong> case; (2) <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> a clear case<br />
<strong>of</strong> disregard <strong>of</strong> a constitutional or statutory prohibition by <strong>the</strong> public respondent agency or<br />
instrumentality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government; and (3) <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> any o<strong>the</strong>r party with a more direct and<br />
specific interest in raising <strong>the</strong> questions being raised. 90 Applying <strong>the</strong>se determinants, this Court is<br />
satisfied that <strong>the</strong> issues raised herein are indeed <strong>of</strong> transcendental importance.<br />
In not a few cases, this Court has in fact adopted a liberal attitude on <strong>the</strong> loc<strong>us</strong> standi <strong>of</strong> a<br />
petitioner where <strong>the</strong> petitioner is able to craft an issue <strong>of</strong> transcendental significance to <strong>the</strong><br />
people, as when <strong>the</strong> issues raised are <strong>of</strong> paramount importance to <strong>the</strong> public. 91 Such liberality<br />
does not, however, mean that <strong>the</strong> requirement that a party should have an interest in <strong>the</strong> matter is<br />
totally eliminated. A party m<strong>us</strong>t, at <strong>the</strong> very least, still plead <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> such interest, it not<br />
being one <strong>of</strong> which courts can take judicial notice. In petitioner Vallejos' case, he failed to allege<br />
any interest in <strong>the</strong> case. He does not th<strong>us</strong> have standing.<br />
With respect to <strong>the</strong> motions for intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rules <strong>of</strong> Court requires an<br />
intervenor to possess a legal interest in <strong>the</strong> matter in litigation, or in <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r disposition <strong>of</strong> property in <strong>the</strong> c<strong>us</strong>tody <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> court or <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>the</strong>re<strong>of</strong>. While<br />
intervention is not a matter <strong>of</strong> right, it may be permitted by <strong>the</strong> courts when <strong>the</strong> applicant shows<br />
facts which satisfy <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> law authorizing intervention. 92<br />
In Intervenors Attorneys Romulo Macalintal and Pete Quirino Quadra's case, <strong>the</strong>y seek to join<br />
petitioners Candelaria, et. al. in G.R. No. 160262. Since, save for one additional issue, <strong>the</strong>y raise<br />
<strong>the</strong> same issues and <strong>the</strong> same standing, and no objection on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> petitioners Candelaria, et.<br />
al. has been interposed, this Court as earlier stated, granted <strong>the</strong> Motion for Leave <strong>of</strong> Court to<br />
Intervene and Petition-in-Intervention.<br />
Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., et. al. sought to<br />
join petitioner Francisco in G.R. No. 160261. Invoking <strong>the</strong>ir right as citizens to intervene,