Pulgar vs. The Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon, Br. 64, et al.

An intervention is ancillary and supplemental to the main action; when the main case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the right to intervene necessarily ceases.

A coal-fired power plant in Mauban, Quezon, was assessed with substantial real property taxes by the Municipal Assessor. The plant owner contested the assessment, leading to a consignation case in the RTC. A local taxpayer attempted to join the suit to ensure aggressive tax collection and seek environmental damages.

• Original Filing: RTC of Mauban, Quezon, Branch 64, Civil Case No. 0587-M (Complaint for Consignation and Damages)
• Lower Court Decision: December 2, 2002 — RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction (proper venue is the LBAA) and dismissed Pulgar's motion for intervention.
• Appeal: Motion for reconsideration denied on March 13, 2003.
• SC Action: Direct recourse to the SC via Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the RTC orders.

• The Assessment: In 1999, the Municipal Assessor of Mauban, Quezon issued 34 tax declarations on QPL's Mauban Plant (coal-fired facility), assessing a total market value of P29.6 billion (approx. P500 million in annual realty taxes), claiming the plant was completed/operational in October 1999.
• QPL's Protest: On May 18, 2000, QPL filed a sworn statement valuing its properties at only P15 billion. On March 16 and 23, 2001, QPL tendered P60.2 million as first quarter installment, which the Municipal Assessor rejected.
• The Consignation Case: QPL filed a Complaint for Consignation and Damages before the RTC, depositing the P60.2 million. QPL protested the Municipal Assessor's authority and valuation process. Defendants argued QPL was estopped from denying the Assessor's authority since it previously paid taxes based on the assessment.
• Pulgar's Intervention: On January 28, 2002, Pulgar (a resident and taxpayer of Quezon Province) filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Answer-in-Intervention, claiming an interest in the aggressive collection of realty taxes. He filed a counterclaim for moral damages and attorney's fees due to environmental disturbance caused by the plant. The RTC initially admitted his intervention.
• Administrative Resolution: In June 2002, QPL and the Province of Quezon submitted their dispute to the Secretary of Finance, who issued a Resolution on August 30, 2002 resolving basic issues between the principal parties.
• RTC Dismissal: On December 2, 2002, the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 0587-M for lack of jurisdiction, noting QPL failed to pay the tax under protest and that the complaint essentially challenged the tax amount (under the LBAA's jurisdiction). The RTC consequently dismissed Pulgar's intervention. Pulgar's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 13, 2003.

• Pulgar acknowledged the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the main case but maintained his right to intervene.
• He prayed for the SC to review the correctness of the Municipal Assessor's realty tax assessment despite the jurisdictional defect.

• N/A (The text does not detail specific arguments from respondents, though the OSG filed a comment. The RTC's reasoning serves as the basis for the respondent's position: the main case was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the proper venue is the LBAA, dragging the intervention down with it).

• Procedural Issues: Whether the RTC erred in dismissing Pulgar's motion for intervention as a consequence of the dismissal of the main case.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the SC should review the correctness of the Municipal Assessor's realty tax assessment despite the RTC lacking jurisdiction over the main case.

• Procedural: The SC ruled the RTC did not err. Jurisdiction over an intervention is governed by jurisdiction over the main action. Intervention presupposes a pending suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the RTC dismissed the main case for lack of jurisdiction, Pulgar's intervention necessarily fell.
• Substantive: The SC refused to review the tax assessment. Intervention is never an independent action; it is ancillary and supplemental to existing litigation. The right of an intervenor is only in aid of the right of the original party. When the original party's right to litigate ceases due to jurisdictional dismissal, there is nothing left to aid, and the right to intervene ceases.

• Ancillary Nature of Intervention — Intervention is never an independent action but is ancillary and supplemental to existing litigation. Its purpose is to afford a non-party the opportunity to appear and be joined to assert or protect a right or interest in a pending case. The right of an intervenor is only in aid of the right of the original party. Where the right of the original party ceases to exist, the right of intervention ceases.

• Rule 19, Rules of Court — Governs intervention. Applied implicitly: an intervention cannot stand independently of the main action.
• Local Government Code / Real Property Tax Code (Implicit) — Applied by the RTC: protests on the amount of real property tax assessments fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Local Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA), requiring prior payment of the tax under protest.