G.R. No. 153828 - LINCOLN L. YAO, VS. HONORABLE NORMA C. PERELLO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 276, MUNTINLUPA CITY, THE EX-OFICIO SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MUNTINLUPA CITY AND BERNADINE D. VILLARIN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, private respondent acted well within her rights in filing a petition for prohibition against the deputy sheriff because the latter went beyond his authority in attaching the subject property. This right is specifically reserved by Section 17, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner insists that, in a petition for prohibition, it is essential that the party who is interested in sustaining the act or acts sought to be prohibited or enjoined be impleaded as private respondent. Thus, as the judgment creditor in the HLURB case, petitioner claims that he was an indispensable party in the petition for prohibition and should have been allowed to intervene in the said case. He was not allowed to do so. Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 2 Petition for prohibition . - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (2a) Consequently, petitioner's claim that he had the right to intervene is without basis. Nothing in the said provision requires the inclusion of a private party as respondent in petitions for prohibition. On the other hand, to allow intervention, it must be shown that (a) the movant has a legal interest in the matter in litigation or otherwise qualified, and (b) consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be delayed or prejudiced, or whether the intervenor's rights may be protected in a separate proceeding or not. Both requirements must concur as the first is not more important than the second. [5] In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioner's right as a judgment creditor was adversely affected by the lifting of the levy on the subject real property. Records reveal that there are other pieces of property exclusively owned by the defendants in the HLURB case that can be levied upon. Moreover, even granting for the sake of argument that petitioner indeed had the right to intervene, he must exercise said right in accordance with the rules and within the period prescribed therefor. As provided in the Rul