-
8/11/2019 Rep vs Phil Resources
1/5
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958
REPUBLC O! T"E P"LPPNES,petitioner,vs.P"LPPNE RESOURCES
#E$ELOPMENT CORPOR%TON an& '() COURT O!
%PPE%LS,respondents.
Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, and Solicitor
Frine C. Zaballero for petitioner.Vicente L. Santiago for
respondent Corporation.
P%#LL%, J.*
This is a petition under Rule 46 to revie a !ud"#ent rendered b$
the Court of Appeals,in CA%&R No. '()6)%R, Philippine Resources
*evelop#ent Corporation vs.The +on. ud"e Ma"no &at#aitan et
al.
The findin"s of the Court of Appeals are, as follos.
-t appears that on Ma$ 6, '((, the Republic of the Philippines
in representation of the Bureau of Prisons instituted a"ainst
Macario Apostol and theE#pire -nsurance Co. a co#plaint doc/eted as
Civil Case No. 06'66 of the Court of 1 irst instance of Manila. The
co#plaint alle"es as the first causeof action, that defendant
Apostol sub#itted the hi"hest bid the a#ount P4(2.22 per ton for
the purchase of '22 tons of Palaan Al#aci"a fro# theBureau of
Prisons3 that a contract therefor as dran and b$ virtue of hich,
Apostol obtained "oods fro# the Bureau of Prisons valued
P'(,).(3that of said account, Apostol paid onl$ P6'.'2 leavin" a
balane obli"ation of P'(,').4. The co#plaint further averes, as
second cause of action,that Apostol sub#itted the best bid ith the
Bureau of Prisons for the purchase of three #illion board feet of
lo"s at P.22 per ',222 board feet3 thata contract as e5ecuted
beteen the *irector of Prisons and Apostol pursuant to hich
contract Apostol obtained deliveries of lo"s valued atP6(.2.22, and
that Apostol failed to pa$ a balance account 7f P',0).(). All told,
for the total de#and set forth in co#plaint a"ainst Apostol is
forP4,2'(.26 ith le"al interests thereon fro# anuar$ , '(0. The
E#pire lnsurance Co#pan$ as included in the co#plaint havin"
e5ecuted aperfor#ance bond of P'2,222.22 in favor of Apostol.
-n his anser, Apostol interposed pa$#ent as a defense and sou"ht
the dis#issal of the co#plaint.
7n ul$ ', '((, the Philippine Resources *evelop#ent Corporation
#oved to intervene, appendin" to its #otion, the co#plaint in the
intervention ofeven date. The co#plaint recites that for so#eti#e
prior to Apostol8s transactions the corporate had so#e "oods
deposited in a arehouse at '02'+erran, Manila3 that Apostol, then
the president of the corporation but ithout the /noled"e or consent
of the stoc/holders thereof, disposed of said"oods b$ deliverin"
the sa#e to the Bureau of Prisons of in an atte#pt to settle his
personal debts ith the latter entit$3 that upon discover$
ofApodol8s act, the corporation too/ steps to recover said "oods b$
de#andin" fro# the Bureau of Prisons the return thereof3 and that
upon the refusalof the Bureau to return said "oods, the corporation
sou"ht leave to intervene in Civil Case No. 06'66.
As aforestated, +is +onor denied the #otion for intervention and
thereb$ issued an order to this effect on ul$ 0, '((. A #otion for
thereconsideration of said order as filed b$ the #ovant corporation
and the sa#e as li/eise denied b$ +is +onor on Au"ust ', '(( . . .
9Anne5 :.;.
7n
-
8/11/2019 Rep vs Phil Resources
2/5
and that accordin" to the repl$ letter of the ?ndersecretar$ of
ustice, said &- sheets and pipes ere delivered b$ Macario
Apostol to the Bureau ofPrisons alle"edl$ in Apostol8s capacit$ as
oner and that the blac/ iron sheets ere delivered b$ Apostol as
President of the petitioner corporation.
Respondents, on the other hand, assert that the sub!ect #atter
of the ori"inal liti"ation is a su# of #one$ alle"edl$ due to the
Bureau of Prisons fro#Macario Apostol and not the "oods or the
#aterials reportedl$ turned over b$ Apostol as pa$#ent of his
private debts to the Bureau of Prisons and therecover$ of hich is
sou"ht b$ the petitioner3 and that for this reason, petitioner has
no le"al interest in the ver$ sub!ect #atter in liti"ation as to
entitleit to intervene.
@e find no #erit in respondents8 contention. -t is true that the
ver$ sub!ect #atter of the ori"inal case is a su# of #one$. But it
is li/eise true as borneout b$ the records, that the #aterials
purportedl$ belon"in" to the petitioner corporation have been
assessed and evaluated and their price euivalentin ter#s of #one$
have been deter#ined3 and that said #aterials for hatever price
the$ have been assi"ned b$ defendant no respondent Apostolas to/ens
of pa$#ent of his private debts ith the Bureau of Prisons. -n vie
of these considerations, it beco#es enor#ousl$ plain in the event
therespondent !ud"e decides to credit Macario Apostol ith the value
of the "oods delivered b$ the latter to the Bureau of Prisons, the
petitionercorporation stands to be adversel$ affected b$ such
!ud"#ent. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that the
petitioner possesses a le"al interestin the #atter in liti"ation
and that such interest is of an actual, #aterial, direct and
i##ediate nature as to entitle petitioner to intervene.
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
ed to file the co#plaint in intervention and appeal for
hisclient.'-t as onl$ in the Court of Appeals here his authorit$ to
appear as uestioned. As the Court of Appeals as satisfied that
counsel as dul$ authori>ed b$his client to file the co#plaint
does in intervention and to appear in its behalf, hte resolution of
the Court of Appeals on this point should not be disturbed.
&rantin" that counsel has not been actuall$ authori>ed b$
the board of directors to appear for and in behalf of the
respondent corporation, the fact that counsel isthe secretar$
treasurer of the respondent corporation and #e#ber of the board of
directors3 and that the other #e#bers of the board, na#el$, Macario
Apostol, thepresident, and his ife Pacita R. Apostol, ho shuold
nor#all$ initiate the action to protect the corporate properties
and in interest are the ones to be adversel$affected thereb$, a
sin"le stoc/holder under such circu#stances #a$ sue in behalf of
the corporation.0Counsel as a stoc/holder and director of the
respondentcorporation #a$ sue in its behalf and file the co#plaint
in intervention in the proper court.
The !ud"#ent under revie is affir#ed, ithout pronounce#ents as
to costs.
"eng#on, Paras, C.$., %ontema&or, 'e&es, A., "atista
Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, 'e&es, $.".L., (ndencia, and
Feli), $$., concur.
!oo'no')+
'
-
8/11/2019 Rep vs Phil Resources
3/5
0
-
8/11/2019 Rep vs Phil Resources
4/5
The Court of Appeals held that=
Petitioner ardentl$ clai#s that the reason behind its #otion to
intervene is the desire to protect its ri"hts and interests over
so#e #aterials purportedl$belon"in" to it3 that said #aterial ere
unauthori>edl$ and ille"all$ assi"ned and delivered to the
Bureau of Prisons b$ petitionin" corporation8spresident Macario
Apostol in pa$#ent of the latter8s personal accounts ith the said
entit$3 and that the Bureau of Prisons refused to return
said#aterials despite petitioner8s de#ands to do so.
Petitioner refers to the particulars recited in Apostol8s anser
dated ul$ '0, '(( to the effect that Apostol had paid unto the
Bureau of Prisons hisaccounts covered, a#on" others, b$ BPP7 '2))
for the su# of P4,6.42 and BPP7 '(4 for the a#ount of P4,.(4.
Petitioner #oreover, pointsto the ed to file the co#plaint in
intervention and appeal for hisclient.'-t as onl$ in the Court of
Appeals here his authorit$ to appear as uestioned. As the Court of
Appeals as satisfied that counsel as dul$ authori>ed b$his
client to file the co#plaint does in intervention and to appear in
its behalf, hte resolution of the Court of Appeals on this point
should not be disturbed.
&rantin" that counsel has not been actuall$ authori>ed b$
the board of directors to appear for and in behalf of the
respondent corporation, the fact that counsel isthe secretar$
treasurer of the respondent corporation and #e#ber of the board of
directors3 and that the other #e#bers of the board, na#el$, Macario
Apostol, thepresident, and his ife Pacita R. Apostol, ho shuold
nor#all$ initiate the action to protect the corporate properties
and in interest are the ones to be adversel$affected thereb$, a
sin"le stoc/holder under such circu#stances #a$ sue in behalf of
the corporation.0Counsel as a stoc/holder and director of the
respondentcorporation #a$ sue in its behalf and file the co#plaint
in intervention in the proper court.
The !ud"#ent under revie is affir#ed, ithout pronounce#ents as
to costs.
-
8/11/2019 Rep vs Phil Resources
5/5
"eng#on, Paras, C.$., %ontema&or, 'e&es, A., "atista
Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, 'e&es, $.".L., (ndencia, and
Feli), $$., concur.
!oo'no')+
'
