The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing and seeking to set aside the Resolution1[1] dated December 1 ! "## of the Court of $%%eals &C$' in C$()*R* +P ,o* -..11! entitled Maximo D. Sison v. Fr. Noel Labendia for Himself and in Representation of Isog Han Samar Movement, Diocese of Calba og, Catbalogan, Samar* /he C$ Resolution denied %etitioner 0ffice of the 0mbudsman1s 0mnibus 2otion for 3ntervention and to $dmit $ttached 2otion for Reconsideration of the C$1s 4une ".! "## Decision*"["]
The Facts

0n 0ctober 11! "##4! the 3sog 5an +amar 2ovement! re%resented b6 7r* ,oel 8abendia of the Diocese of Calba6og! Catbalogan! +amar! filed a letter( com%laint addressed to then 0mbudsman! 5on* +imeon 2arcelo! accusing )overnor 2ilagrosa /* /an and other local %ublic officials 9[9] of the Province of +amar! including res%ondent 2a:imo D* +ison! of highl6 anomalous transactions entered into b6 them amounting to several millions of %esos* +ison was the Provincial Budget 0fficer /he letter(com%laint stemmed from the audit investigation dated $ugust 19! "##4 conducted b6 the 8egal and $d;udication 0ffice &8$0'! Commission on $udit &C0$'! which found! among others! that various %urchases totaling PhP "-*94 million went without %ro%er bidding %rocedures and documentations< that calamit6 funds were e:%ended without a +tate of Calamit6 having been declared
1 2 3

b6 the President< and that %urchases for rice! medicines! electric fans! and cement were substantiall6 over%riced*

/he +%ecial $udit /eam! which was created under 8$0 0ffice 0rder ,o* "##9(#5- dated 4ul6 =! "##9! summari>ed the corres%onding C0$ audit findings and observations! to wit?

1*

Rules and regulations %ertaining to %rocurement of su%%lies and materials were consciousl6 and continuall6 violated as disclosed in the verification of selected %urchases of the Province* Below were the findings and observations? a* Purchases of various items! totaling at least PhP "-*94 million and allegedl6 %rocured through %ublic bidding! were found highl6 irregular for lack of %ro%er bidding %rocedures and documentation< b* $t least PhP " *1.5 million worth of %urchases through re%eat orders were made b6 the Province without observing the %ertinent law! rules and regulations governing this mode of %rocurement< and c* @mergenc6 %urchases of medicines and assorted goods totaling PhP 14*.= million were found not com%l6ing with the reAuirements set forth under the Rules and Regulations on +u%%lies and Pro%ert6 2anagement in 8ocal )overnments &RR+P28)'* 2oreover! the %urchases were charged against the calamit6 fund! des%ite absence of an6 declaration from the President that +amar was under a state of calamit6! in violation of +ec* 9"4&d' of R*$* =1.#*

"* 3nconsistencies in the dates of su%%orting documents relating to the %urchases discussed in finding ,o* 1 were so glaring that the6 raised doubts on the validit6 of the transactions %er se< 9* /he use of the 5B budgetar6 reserves for calamit6 as funding source of emergenc6 %urchases was not legall6 established! there being no declaration from the 0ffice of the President that +amar was under a state of calamit6! as reAuired under +ec* 9"4&d' of R*$* =1.#< +%litting of reAuisitions and %urchase orders was resorted to in violation of C0$ Circular ,o* =.(41 dated 4ul6 9#! 1-=.< /here was over%ricing in the %urchase of rice! medicines! electric fans and cement in the amount of PhP 5 #!###*##! PhP 9""!=.#*##! PhP 941!#4#*##!

4* 5*

and PhP 9*. million! res%ectivel6* $n over%a6ment was also committed in the %a6ments of cement in the amount of PhP -.!9.4*#-< .* 0ther observations gathered corollar6 to the %urchases made are the following? a* Purchase 0rders were not dul6 accom%lished to include a com%lete descri%tion of the items to be %urchased! the deliver6 date and the terms of %a6ment! in violation of the %rovisions of +ection =4 and other corollar6 %rovisions of RR+P28)* +ome were even acknowledged b6 su%%liers< b* $t least 9. vouchersCclaims were not su%%orted with an official recei%t! in violation of the %rovisions of +ection 4 of PD 1445 that all disbursements must be su%%orted with com%lete documentation< and c* $dvanced deliveries of medicines and assorted goods were made on some %urchases even before the %urchase orders were %re%ared and before the %ublic biddings were conducted* =* /he necessit6 and veracit6 of the distribution of t(shirtsCca%s! medicines! assorted goods and cement %urchased b6 the Province of +amar could not be established due to ram%ant inconsistencies in dates! Auantities! as well as the signatures of the alleged reci%ients in the ReAuisition and 3ssue +li%< and! 7inancial $ssistance &7$'C$ssistance to 3ndividuals in Crisis +ituation &$3C+' totaling at least PhP 5*4 million in "##" and PhP "*= million as of $%ril "##9 were granted to various a%%licant(reci%ients without sub;ecting them to the guidelines set forth b6 the De%artment of +ocial Delfare and Develo%ment &D+DD'*4[4] : : :

0n 4anuar6 "4! "##5! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman! through Director 4ose /* De 4esus! 4r*! found basis to %roceed with the administrative case against the im%leaded %rovincial officials of +amar! docketed as 02B(C($(#5(##51(B* /he latter were then reAuired to file their counter(affidavits and countervailing evidence against the com%laint* 3n his counter(affidavit! +ison vehementl6 denied the accusations contained in the letter(com%laint and claimed his innocence on the charges* 5e asserted that his function is limited to the issuance of a certification that an a%%ro%riation for the reAuisition e:ists! that the corres%onding amount has been obligated! and that funds
4

are available* 5e did not! in an6 wa6! vouch for the truthfulness of the certification issued b6 the reAuesting %arties* 3n addition! he averred that he never %artici%ated in the alleged irregularities as shown in the minutes and attendance sheet of the bidding* 7urther! he alleged that not one of the documentar6 evidences so far attached in the letter(com%laint bore his signature and that he was neither factuall6 connected nor directl6 im%licated in the com%laint* 0n 2a6 .! "##5! +ison submitted his Position Pa%er to the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman and reiterated that he had not %artici%ated in the alleged anomalous %urchases and use of %ublic funds b6 the Province of +amar* 0n $ugust ""! "##.! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman rendered a Decision! finding +ison and several other local officials of the Province of +amar guilt6 of grave misconduct! dishonest6! and conduct %re;udicial to the best interest of the service and dismissing him from service* /he dis%ositive %ortion of the Decision reads?

E3@D@D 3, /5@ 70R@)03,) 83)5/! D@C3+30, is hereb6 rendered as follows? 1* Res%ondents R08$,D0 B* 20,/@40! D$23$,0 F* C0,D@! 4R*! R02@0 C* R@$8@+! MAXIMO D. SISON! $GR@830 $* B$RD$4@ and ,G2@R3$,0 C* 8@)$+P3 are 70G,D )G38/H of )R$E@ 23+C0,DGC/! D3+50,@+/H and C0,DGC/ PR@4GD3C3$8 /0 /5@ B@+/ 3,/@R@+/ 07 /5@ +@RE3C@! and are 2@/@D the %enalt6 of D3+23++$8 7R02 +@RE3C@! and shall carr6 with it the cancellation of eligibilit6! forfeiture of retirement benefits! and the %er%etual disAualification for re(em%lo6ment in the government service*

$ccordingl6! )overnor 2ilagrosa /* /an and @:ecutive Director Presentacion R* 2ontesa of the Bureau of 8ocal )overnment 7inance!

De%artment of 7inance! are res%ectfull6 directed to im%lement this 0rder u%on recei%t hereof and to forthwith inform the 0ffice of com%liance herewith* "* /he administrative com%laint against res%ondents 238$)R0+$ /* /$,! 7@ 0R/@)$ /$, $RC$8@+! +G+$,0 D32$I383,) +$8GR30! B$R/0802@ P* 73)G@R0$! $,/0,30 D@ 8@0, B08$+/3)! 333! R0+@,$3D$ $* R0+$8@+ and B$R/0802@ R* C$+/3880 333 is D3+23++@D in view of their re(election in 2a6 "##4< /he administrative com%laint against @R,@+/0 C$RC388$R $RC$8@+! 7@83J /* B$B$8C0,! 4R*! 4322H R* DH! 4G$, C083,$R@+ 8$/0RR@! 4R*! 2$R3$ 80GRD@+ C0R/@F GH! B3@,E@,3D$ P* R@P08 and R$20, P* D@$,! 4R*! who are no longer %ublic officials! is D3+23++@D* 7or insufficienc6 of evidence! the administrative com%laint against $,$23@ P* 2$,$/$D(,G,@F and R0+3@ $2$R0 E388$C0R/@ is D3+23++@D* /he 7act(7inding and 3ntelligence 0ffice is D3R@C/@D to conduct further fact(finding investigations on the following? a* 0n DE ,os* ""1("##"(1"(# 9 and ""1("##"(11(#.5? &a' to D@/@R23,@ the other %ublic officials who ma6 be held administrativel6 liable< and &b' to 738@! if necessar6! the corres%onding Com%laint< b* 0n Bid ,os* #=-("##"! 44"("##"! 554("##"! .1("##"! -9=( "##"! -4=("##"! 1""1("##"! 19=5("##"! 1411("##"! ##=("##9! #14("##9! #"9("##9! #4=("##9 and # "("##"? &a' to E@R37H whether actual %ublic biddings took %lace relative to the transactions covered b6 these bids< &b' to C5@CI the veracit6 of the documents relative to the re%eat orders made< &c' to D@/@R23,@ the other %ublic officials who ma6 a%%ear to be administrativel6 liable therefor< and &d' to 738@! if warranted! the corres%onding Com%laint< and c* 0n Bid ,os* #= ("##"! 44 ("##"! -91("##"! 1"9#("##1! 411( "##"! -44("##"! 1"44("##"! 14#=("##1! 1- ("##"! 91.("##" and 491("##"? &a' to D@/@R23,@ whether actual %ublic biddings were held relative to the above(mentioned transactions< &b' to C5@CI the veracit6 of the documents relative to the re%eat orders made< &c' to $+C@R/$3, the other %ublic officials who ma6 be held administrativel6 liable therefor< and &d' to 738@ the corres%onding Com%laint! if warranted*

9*

4*

5*

$ccordingl6! let a co%6 of this 2emorandum be furnished the 7act( 7inding and 3ntelligence 0ffice for its a%%ro%riate action* +0 0RD@R@D*5[5] &@m%hasis su%%lied*'

$ggrieved! +ison a%%ealed to the C$ via a Petition for Review under Rule 49! docketed as C$()*R* +P ,o* -..11*

0n 4une ".! "## ! the C$ rendered a decision reversing and setting aside the decision of the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman against +ison* /he fallo of the C$ decision reads?

D5@R@70R@! the decision of the 0mbudsman dated "" $ugust "##. in 02B(C($(#5(##51(B in so far as it finds the herein %etitioner 2$J320 D* +3+0, administrativel6 liable for grave misconduct! dishonest6 and conduct %re;udicial to the best interest of service is hereb6 R@E@R+@D and +@/ $+3D@ for insufficienc6 of evidence* $ccordingl6! he is absolved from administrative liabilit6 as charged* +0 0RD@R@D*.[.]

3n ruling thus! the C$ held that the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman failed to adduce substantial evidence in order to convict +ison* 2oreover! it reasoned that +ison1s res%onsibilit6 as Provincial Budget 0fficer was to ensure that a%%ro%riations e:ist in relation to the emergenc6 %urchase being made and that he had no hand or discretion in characteri>ing a %articular %urchase as emergenc6 in nature* 5ence! he cannot be held administrativel6 liable for sim%l6 attesting to the e:istence of a%%ro%riations for a certain %ur%ose! save if such certification is %roved to be false*
5 6

0n 4ul6 ""! "## ! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman filed an 0mnibus 2otion for 3ntervention and to $dmit $ttached 2otion for Reconsideration! which was subseAuentl6 denied b6 the C$ in its assailed resolution of December 1 ! "## * 5ence! we have this %etition*

The Issues

3 Dhether the [C$] gravel6 erred in den6ing %etitioner1s right to intervene in the %roceedings! considering that &a' the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman has sufficient legal interest warranting its intervention in the %roceedings before the [C$] since it rendered the sub;ect decision %ursuant to its administrative authorit6 over %ublic officials and em%lo6ees< and &b' contrar6 to the a%%ellate court a !"o#s ruling! %etitioner 0ffice of the 0mbudsman filed its 0mnibus 2otion to 3ntervene and to $dmit $ttached 2otion for Reconsideration on a %atentl6 erroneous decision of the [C$] which has not 6et attained finalit6* 33 Dhether the [C$] erred in ruling that the finding of the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman was not su%%orted b6 substantial evidence* 333 Dhether the [C$] erred in giving due course to res%ondent1s %etition for review when this was %rematurel6 filed as it disregarded the well(entrenched ;uris%rudential doctrine of e:haustion of administrative remedies*
Our Ruling

/he a%%eal lacks merit* Intervention Is Discretionary upon the Court

/he %ivotal issue in this case is whether the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman ma6 be allowed to intervene and seek reconsideration of the adverse decision rendered b6 the C$* 3n its Decision! the C$ did not allow the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman to intervene! because &1' the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman is not a third %art6 who has a legal interest in the administrative case against %etitioner< &"' the 0mnibus 2otion for 3ntervention was filed after the C$ rendered its Decision< and &9' the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman was the Auasi(;udicial bod6 which rendered the im%ugned decision* 3n its Petition! however! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman asserts that it has sufficient legal interest to warrant its intervention in the %roceedings! since it rendered the sub;ect decision %ursuant to its administrative authorit6 over %ublic officials and em%lo6ees* 7urther! it contends that the 0mnibus 2otion to 3ntervene was timel6 filed! since! at the time of its filing! the decision of the C$ had not 6et attained finalit6* De are not %ersuaded* 3t is fundamental that the allowance or disallowance of a 2otion to 3ntervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court* =[=] /he %ermissive tenor of the rules shows the intention to give to the court the full measure of discretion in %ermitting or disallowing the intervention! [ ] thus?

SECTION . $%o ma intervene* K $ %erson who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation! or in the success of either of the %arties! or an interest
7 8

against both! or is so situated as to be adversel6 affected b6 a distribution or other dis%osition of %ro%ert6 in the custod6 of the court or of an officer thereof ma6! with leave of court! be allowed to intervene in the action* /he court shall consider whether or not the intervention will undul6 dela6 or %re;udice the ad;udication of the rights of the original %arties! and whether or not the intervenor1s rights ma6 be full6 %rotected in a se%arate %roceeding* SECTION !. &ime to intervene. K /he motion to intervene "ay #e $ile% at any ti"e #e$ore ren%ition o$ &u%g"ent #y the trial court * $ co%6 of the %leading(in(intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original %arties*-[-] &@m%hasis su%%lied*'

+im%l6! intervention is a %rocedure b6 which third %ersons! not originall6 %arties to the suit but claiming an interest in the sub;ect matter! come into the case in order to %rotect their right or inter%ose their claim* 1#[1#] 3ts main %ur%ose is to settle in one action and b6 a single ;udgment all conflicting claims of! or the whole controvers6 among! the %ersons involved*11[11 /o warrant intervention under Rule 1- of the Rules of Court! two reAuisites must concur? &1' the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation< and &"' intervention must not undul6 dela6 or %re;udice the ad;udication of the rights of the %arties! nor should the claim of the intervenor be ca%able of being %ro%erl6 decided in a se%arate %roceeding* /he interest! which entitles one to intervene! must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose b6 the direct legal o%eration and effect of the ;udgment*1"[1"]

9 10 11 12

3n su%%ort of its argument that it has legal interest! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman cites '%ilippine National (an) v. *arcia, +r. &*arcia'. 19[19] 3n the said case! the Phili%%ine ,ational Bank &P,B' im%osed u%on its em%lo6ee! )arcia! the %enalt6 of forced resignation for gross neglect of dut6* 0n a%%eal! the Civil +ervice Commission &C+C' e:onerated )arcia from the administrative charges against him* 3n accordance with the ruling in Civil Service Commission v. Daco co !14[14] this Court affirmed the standing of the P,B to a%%eal to the C$ the C+C resolution e:onerating )arcia* $fter all! P,B was the aggrieved %art6 which com%lained of )arcia1s acts of dishonest6* +hould )arcia be finall6 e:onerated! it might then be incumbent u%on P,B to take him back into its fold* P,B should! therefore! be allowed to a%%eal a decision that! in its view! ham%ered its right to select honest and trustworth6 em%lo6ees! so that it can %rotect and %reserve its name as a %remier banking institution in the countr6*

Based on the facts above! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman cannot use *arcia to su%%ort its intervention in the a%%ellate court for the following reasons? First! +ison was not e:onerated from the administrative charges against him! and was! in fact! dismissed for grave misconduct! dishonest6! and conduct %re;udicial to the best interest of the service b6 the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman in the administrative case! 02B(C($(#5(##51(B* /hus! it was +ison who a%%ealed to the C$ being! unAuestionabl6! the %art6 aggrieved b6 the ;udgment on a%%eal* Second! the issue here is the right of the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman to intervene in the a%%eal of its decision! not its right to a%%eal*
13 14

$nd t%ird! *arcia should be read along with Mat%a , +r. v. Co"rt of ,ppeals15[15] and National ,ppellate (oard of t%e National 'olice Commission v. Mama"ag &Mama"ag'!1.[1.] in which this Court Aualified and clarified the e:ercise of the right of a government agenc6 to activel6 %artici%ate in the a%%eal of decisions in administrative cases* 3n Mama"ag! this Court ruled?

R$ .-=5 itself does not authori>e a %rivate com%lainant to a%%eal a decision of the disci%lining authorit6* +ections 49 and 45 of R$ .-=5 authori>e Leither %art61 to a%%eal in the instances that the law allows a%%eal* 0ne %art6 is the P,P member(res%ondent when the disci%lining authorit6 im%oses the %enalt6 of demotion or dismissal from the service* /he other %art6 is the government when the disci%lining authorit6 im%oses the %enalt6 of demotion but the government believes that dismissal from the service is the %ro%er %enalt6* 5owever! the government %art6 that can a%%eal is not the disci%lining authorit6 or tribunal which %reviousl6 heard the case and im%osed the %enalt6 of demotion or dismissal from the service* /he government %art6 a%%ealing must be the one that is %rosecuting the administrative case against the res%ondent* 0therwise! an anomalous situation will result where the disci%lining authorit6 or tribunal hearing the case! instead of being im%artial and detached! becomes an active %artici%ant in %rosecuting the res%ondent* /hus! in Mat%a , +r. v. Co"rt of ,ppeals! decided after Daco co ! the Court declared? /o be sure when the resolutions of the Civil +ervice Commission were brought to the Court of $%%eals! the Civil +ervice Commission was included onl6 as a nominal %art6* $s a Auasi(;udicial bod6! the Civil +ervice Commission can be likened to a ;udge who should Mdetach himself from cases where his decision is a%%ealed to a higher court for review*N 3n instituting )*R* ,o* 1".954! the Civil +ervice Commission dangerousl6 de%arted from its role as ad;udicator and became an advocate* 3ts mandated function is to Mhear and decide administrative cases instituted b6 or brought before it directl6 or on a%%eal! including contested a%%ointments and to review decisions and actions of its offices and agencies!N not to litigate*

Clearl6! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman is not an a%%ro%riate %art6 to intervene in the instant case* 3t must remain
15 16

%artial and detached* 2ore im%ortantl6! it must be mindful of its role as an ad;udicator! not an advocate*
3t is an established doctrine that ;udges should detach themselves from cases

where their decisions are a%%ealed to a higher court for review* /he raison d#etre for such a doctrine is the fact that ;udges are not active combatants in such %roceeding and must leave the o%%osing %arties to contend their individual %ositions and the a%%ellate court to decide the issues without the ;udges1 active %artici%ation*1=[1=] instead*1 [1 ] 3n 'le to v. '%ilippine National 'olice Criminal Investigation and Detection *ro"p -'N'.CID*/!1-[1-] the Court a%%lied this doctrine when it held that the C$ erred in granting the 2otion to 3ntervene filed b6 the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman! to wit? Dhen ;udges activel6 %artici%ate in the a%%eal of their ;udgment! the6! in a wa6! cease to be ;udicial and have become adversarial

/he court or the Auasi(;udicial agenc6 must be detached and im%artial! not onl6 when hearing and resolving the case before it! but even when its ;udgment is brought on a%%eal before a higher court* /he ;udge of a court or the officer of a Auasi(;udicial agenc6 must kee% in mind that he is an ad;udicator who must settle the controversies between %arties in accordance with the evidence and a%%licable laws! regulations andCor ;uris%rudence* 5is ;udgment should alread6 clearl6 and com%letel6 state his findings of fact and law* /here must be no more need for him to ;ustif6 further his ;udgment when it is a%%ealed before a%%ellate courts* Dhen the court ;udge or the Auasi(;udicial officer intervenes as a %art6 in the a%%ealed case! he inevitabl6 forsakes his detachment and im%artialit6! and his interest in the case becomes %ersonal since his ob;ective now is no longer onl6 to settle the controvers6 between the original %arties &which he had alread6 accom%lished b6 rendering his ;udgment'! but more significantl6! to refute the a%%ellant1s
17 18 19

assignment of errors! defend his ;udgment! and %revent it from being overturned on a%%eal*

8ikewise! the facts reveal that this case was elevated to the C$ via a verified Petition for Review under Rule 49 of the Rules of Court and +u%reme Court $dministrative Circular ,o* 1(-5 dated 2a6 1.! 1--5! which govern a%%eals to the C$ from ;udgments or final orders of Auasi(;udicial agencies* Rule 49! as well as $dministrative Circular ,o* 1(-5! %rovides that the %etition for review shall state the full names of the %arties to the case 'ithout i"plea%ing the court or agencies either as petitioners or respon%ents *"#["#] /hus! the onl6 %arties in such an a%%eal are the a%%ellant as %etitioner and a%%ellee as res%ondent* /he court or! in this case! the administrative agenc6 that rendered the ;udgment a%%ealed from! is not a %art6 in the said a%%eal* /herefore! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman does not have the legal interest to intervene* $s the C$ held correctl6?

/he 0ffice of the 0mbudsman is not a third %art6 who has a legal interest in the administrative case against the %etitioner such that it would be directl6 affected b6 the ;udgment that this Court had rendered* 3t must be remembered that the legal interest reAuired for an intervention must be direct and immediate in character* 8est it be forgotten! what was brought on a%%eal before this Court is the ver6 Decision b6 the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman* Plainl6! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman! as an ad;udicator! and not an advocate! has no legal interest at stake in the outcome of this Rule 49 Petition*"1["1]

Motion $or Intervention (as Not File% on Ti"e 7urthermore! the Rules %rovides e:%licitl6 that a motion to intervene ma6 be filed at an6 time #e$ore ren%ition o$ &u%g"ent #y the trial court * 3n the instant
20 21

case! the 0mnibus 2otion for 3ntervention was filed onl6 on 4ul6 ""! "## ! after the Decision of the C$ was %romulgated on 4une ".! "## * 3n su%%ort of its %osition! %etitioner cites 0ffice of t%e 0mb"dsman v. Samaniego*""[""] /hat case! however! is not a%%licable here! since the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman filed the motion for intervention during the %endenc6 of the %roceedings before the C$* 3t should be noted that the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman was aware of the a%%eal filed b6 +ison* /he Rules of Court %rovides that the a%%eal shall be taken b6 filing a verified %etition for review with the C$! 'ith proo$ o$ service o$ a copy on the court or agency a quo*"9["9] Clearl6! the 0ffice of the 0mbudsman had sufficient time within which to file a motion to intervene* $s such! its failure to do so should not now be countenanced* /he 0ffice of the 0mbudsman is e:%ected to be an Mactivist watchman!N not merel6 a %assive onlooker*"4["4]

3n this case! it cannot be denied that the 0mnibus 2otion for 3ntervention was belatedl6 filed* $s we held in Roc)land Constr"ction Co., Inc. v. Sing1on, +r. ! no intervention is %ermitted after a decision has alread6 been rendered* 3n light of the foregoing considerations! all other issues raised in the %etition are rendered moot and academic and no further discussion is necessar6*

22 23 24

()EREFORE! the %etition is DENIED* /he C$ Resolution dated December 1 ! "## in C$()*R* +P ,o* -..11 is AFFIRMED*

SO ORDERED.