QUINTO v.

COMELEC (22 February 2010) DOCTRINE: Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice. In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. We stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. NATURE: Motion for Reconsideration of a decision of the SC PONENTE: Puno, C.J. FACTS: In preparation for the 2010 elections, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 8678 the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of Official Candidates of Registered Political Parties in Connection with the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections. Section 4 ofResolution No. 8678 provide: o SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy.a) Any person holding a public appointive office or position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in governmentowned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position. Two appointive officers of the government who were planning to run in the 2010 elections sought the nullification of Section 4(a) on the ground, among others,

that it is discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Preceding petition for certiorari was granted, and paved the way for public appointive officials to continue discharging the powers, prerogatives, and functions of their office notwithstanding their entry into the political arena. COMELEC and movants-intervenors

ISSUES: Procedure: WoN the motions for reconsideration-in-intervention were proper Substantive: WoN the assailed decision which nullified the section of the COMELEC resolution on effect of filing CoC of appointive public official is violative of the constitutional proscription against the participation of public appointive officials and members of the military in partisan political activity HELD: Procedure: YES, the motions intervention were proper. for reconsideration-in-

Substantive: YES, the assailed decision is unconstitutional.

RATIO/RULING: (Procedure only) Requisites for the Court to entertain motions for intervention: (Rule 19, Sec 1, ROC) o the would-be intervenor shows that he has a substantial right or interest in the case; and o such right or interest cannot be adequately pursued and protected in another proceeding. o But Rule 19, Sec 2 states the period to intervene. SECTION 2. Time to intervene. The motion for intervention may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.

This rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule, when demanded by the higher interest of justice. In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. We stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice.14 Its purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. All the movants-intervenors may properly intervene in the case at bar.

Two provisions of the Constitution, taken together, mandate that civil service employees cannot engage in any electioneering or partisan political activity except to vote.

DISSENTING OPINION: Nachura: (Procedure) The motions for intervention should be denied. Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that motions to intervene may be filed at any time "before the rendition of judgment. Obviously, as this Court already rendered judgment on December 1, 2009, intervention may no longer be allowed. The movants, Roxas, Drilon, IBP-Cebu City Chapter, and Apacible, cannot claim to have been unaware of the pendency of this much publicized case. They should have intervened prior to the rendition of this Courts Decision on December 1, 2009. To allow their intervention at this juncture is unwarranted and highly irregular. While the Court has the power to suspend the application of procedural rules, I find no compelling reason to excuse movants procedural lapse and allow their much belated intervention. Further, a perusal of their pleadings-in-intervention reveals that they merely restated the points and arguments in the earlier dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Puno and Senior Associate Justices Carpio and Carpio Morales.

DISPOSITION: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondents and the intervenors Motions for Reconsideration; REVERSE and SET ASIDE this Courts December 1, 2009 Decision; DISMISS the Petition; and ISSUE this Resolution declaring as not UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1) Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, (2) the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, and (3) Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. SO ORDERED.

VOTE: 10-6 Majority: Puno, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Brion, Peralta, JJ., concur Dissenters: Corona, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin

CONCURRING OPINION: Carpio: The filing of a Certificate of Candidacy for an elective position is, by the very nature of the act, an electioneering or partisan political activity.