5/24/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 734

G.R. No. 157583. September 10, 2014.*

FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR, petitioner, vs. THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAUBAN, QUEZON,
BRANCH 64, QUEZON POWER (PHILIPPINES)
LIMITED, CO., PROVINCE OF QUEZON, and
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, respondents

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Intervention;

Actions; Jurisdiction over an intervention is governed by
jurisdiction over the main action.—Jurisdiction over an
intervention is governed by jurisdiction over the main action.
Accordingly, an intervention presupposes the pendency of a suit
in a court of competent jurisdiction. In this case, Pulgar does not
contest the RTC’s dismissal of Civil Case No. 0587-M for lack of
jurisdiction, but oddly maintains his intervention by asking in
this appeal a review of the correctness of the subject realty tax
assessment. This recourse, the Court, however, finds to be
improper since the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the main case
necessarily resulted in the dismissal of his intervention. In other
words, the cessation of the principal litigation — on jurisdictional
grounds at that — means that Pulgar had, as a matter of course,
lost his right to intervene.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the

Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon, Br. 64.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Sentro ng Gabay Legal sa Quezon and Escobido and
Pulgar Law Offices for petitioner.
Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez & Gatmaitan for respondent
QPL.

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

528

528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pulgar vs. Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon,
Branch 64

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001799cfb36c03e6f8b4c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/6
5/24/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 734

RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is a direct recourse to the Court via a petition for
review on certiorari1 assailing the Orders dated December
2, 20022 and March 13, 20033 issued by the Regional Trial
Court of Mauban, Quezon, Branch 64 (RTC) which
dismissed Civil Case No. 0587-M on jurisdictional grounds
and, concomitantly, petitioner Frumencio E. Pulgar’s
(Pulgar) motion for intervention therein.
The Facts4
Sometime in 1999, the Municipal Assessor of Mauban,
Quezon issued 34 tax declarations on the buildings and
machinery comprising the Mauban Plant — a coal-fired
electric generation facility owned and operated by
respondent Quezon Power (Philippines) Limited, Co. (QPL)
— and thereby assessed it with a total market value of
P29,626,578,291.00 and, hence, P500 Million, more or less,
in realty taxes per annum. The Municipal Assessor
maintained that the Mauban Plant was completed and
already operational in October 1999. Subsequently, or on
May 18, 2000, QPL filed with the Municipal Assessor a
sworn statement declaring that the said properties had a
value of only P15,055,951,378.00.5
On March 16 and 23, 2001, QPL tendered to the
Municipal Assessor the amount of P60,223,805.51 as first
quarter installment of the realty taxes on the plant, which
the latter rejected.6 Hence, QPL filed a Complaint for
Consignation and

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 15-50.

2  Id., at pp. 111-113. Penned by Judge Virgilio C. Alpajora.
4  Culled from the Comment of the OSG, id., at pp. 384-394.
3  Id., at pp. 114-115.
5  Id., at pp. 385-387.
6  Id., at pp. 387-388.

529

VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 529

Pulgar vs. Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon,
Branch 64

Damages7 before the RTC against the Province of Quezon,

the Municipal Assessor and Municipal Treasurer of
Mauban, Quezon, and the Provincial Assessor and
Provincial Treasurer of Quezon (defendants), docketed as
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001799cfb36c03e6f8b4c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/6
5/24/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 734

Civil Case No. 0587-M, depositing to the RTC the above

stated amount in payment of the first quarter realty tax for
2001.8 Albeit classified as a consignation and damages
case, QPL essentially protested the Municipal Assessor’s
assessment for, among others, its lack of legal authority to
make such assessment and its supposed noncompliance
with the prescribed valuation process.9
For their part,10 defendants averred, among others, that
QPL was estopped from denying the authority of the
Municipal Assessor since it previously paid realty taxes for
its properties for the year 2001 based on the assessment of
the latter.
On January 28, 2002, Pulgar filed a Motion for Leave to
Admit Answer-in-Intervention11 and Answer-in-
Intervention12 (motion for intervention), alleging, among
others, that as a resident and taxpayer of Quezon Province,
he has an interest in the aggressive collection of realty
taxes against QPL. By way of counterclaim, he prayed for
the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees, anchoring
the same on the “mindless disturbance of the forest and
marine environment whereon the power plant of [QPL]
stands.”13 Pulgar’s motion was initially granted and his
Answer-in-Intervention was admitted.14
Sometime in June 2002, QPL and the Province of
Quezon agreed to submit their dispute before the Secretary
of Fi-

_______________

7   Id., at pp. 51-61.

8   Id., at pp. 51-52.
9   Id., at p. 55.
10  See Answer dated October 16, 2001; id., at pp. 62-73.
11  Id., at pp. 74-76.
12  Id., at pp. 77-95.
13  Id., at p. 94.
14  See Order dated June 21, 2002; id., at pp. 96-99. Penned by Judge
Jose V. Hernandez.

530

530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pulgar vs. Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon,
Branch 64

nance, which resulted in a Resolution15 dated August 30,

2002 where the basic issues between the principal parties
were passed upon.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001799cfb36c03e6f8b4c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/6
5/24/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 734

The RTC’s Ruling

16
In an Order dated December 2, 2002, the RTC
dismissed Civil Case No. 0587-M for lack of jurisdiction in
the absence of a payment of the tax assessed under protest,
which requirement QPL attempted to skirt by alleging in
its complaint that it is the very authority of the Municipal
Assessor to impose the assessment and the treasurer to
collect the tax that it was questioning. Declaring that
QPL’s complaint essentially challenged the amount of the
taxes assessed, the RTC ruled that it is the Local Board of
Assessment Appeals that had jurisdiction over the
complaint. Consequently, it also dismissed Pulgar’s motion
for intervention since with the dismissal of the main case,
the same had no leg to stand on.17
 
The Issue Before the Court
The issue advanced before the Court is whether or not
the RTC erred in dismissing Pulgar’s motion for
intervention as a consequence of the dismissal of the main
case. While acknowledging the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction,
Pulgar nonetheless prays that the Court pass upon the
correctness of the Municipal Assessor’s assessment of
QPL’s realty taxes, among others.  

_______________

15   Id., at pp. 100-110. Signed by Secretary of Finance Jose Isidro N.

Camacho.
16  Id., at pp. 111-113.
17  Id., at pp. 112-113.
Aggrieved, Pulgar filed a motion for reconsideration which was,
however, denied in an Order18 dated March 13, 2003, hence, this petition.
18  Id., at pp. 114-115.

531

VOL. 734, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 531

Pulgar vs. Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon,
Branch 64

The Court’s Ruling

The petition lacks merit.
Jurisdiction over an intervention is governed by
jurisdiction over the main action.19 Accordingly, an
intervention presupposes the pendency of a suit in a court
of competent jurisdiction.20

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001799cfb36c03e6f8b4c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/6
5/24/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 734

In this case, Pulgar does not contest the RTC’s dismissal of

Civil Case No. 0587-M for lack of jurisdiction, but oddly maintains
his intervention by asking in this appeal a review of the
correctness of the subject realty tax assessment. This recourse,
the Court, however, finds to be improper since the RTC’s lack of
jurisdiction over the main case necessarily resulted in the
dismissal of his intervention. In other words, the cessation of the
principal litigation — on jurisdictional grounds at that — means
that Pulgar had, as a matter of course, lost his right to intervene.
Verily, it must be borne in mind that:
[I]ntervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary
and supplemental to the existing litigation. Its purpose is not to
obstruct nor x x x 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 interests.

Otherwise stated, the right of an intervenor should only

be in aid of the right of the original party. Where the right
of the latter has ceased to exist, there is nothing to aid or
fight for; hence, the right of intervention ceases.21

_______________

19   Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Judge Bautista-Ricafort, 536 Phil. 614,

630; 505 SCRA 748, 763 (2006).
20  Id.
21   Cariño v. Ofilada, G.R. No. 102836, January 18, 1993, 217 SCRA
206, 215; citations omitted.

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pulgar vs. Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon,
Branch 64

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr.,** Leonardo-De Castro*** (Acting

Chairperson), Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Notes.—Intervention is not an absolute right as it can

be secured only in accordance with the terms of the
applicable statute or rule. (Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Samaniego, 564 SCRA 567 [2008])
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001799cfb36c03e6f8b4c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/6
5/24/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 734

Intervention is 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. (Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority
vs. Heirs of Estanislao Miñoza, 641 SCRA 520 [2011])
——o0o——

______________

* * Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1772 dated

August 28, 2014.
* ** Per Special Order No. 1771 dated August 28, 2014.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001799cfb36c03e6f8b4c000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/6