REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MANILA BRANCH 10
Manila

Association of International Shipping

Lines Inc. (AISLI), for its own behalf
and in representation of Maerk Line,
et. al
Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 13-129584

For: INTERPLEADER

EDGAR T. LIM, et al.,

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT AND/OR OPPOSITION

TO INTERVENOR’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Defendants Tom, Pintang and Javines, Jr., by counsel, most

reverentially submit this Comment and/or Opposition of the
Intervenor’s Motion for Leave to Intervene and in support hereof
further aver:

On April 11, 2015, defendants through undersigned counsel

received the said Motion dated 20 March 2015 of RMS Petroleum
Technology & Waste Management Corp. Hence, this Comment
and/or Opposition.

To begin with, GDITI entered into a contract with Philippine

Port Authority (PPA) for the “ Establishment and Operation and
Treatment Facilities for Ships' Wastes' wherein the former was
authorized, for a period of 15 years to establish shore reception
facilities and to collect, transport, treat and dispose of vessel-
generated wastes from the different Port of the Philippines in
accordance with the requirement of the requirement of the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
 1. Browsing and taking careful scrutiny as regards the above
mentioned transaction entered into by GDITI, logic and reason would
dictate that RMS Petroleum Technology & Waste Management Corp.
does not have any privity as regards the transaction that entered into
by GDITI and PPA. Further, there was also no privity of contract
between RMS and AISLI/ the Plaintiff in this Interpleader case.

2. Hence, having no privity in the contracts entered into

between GDITI, PPA and AISLI would necessarily mean that RMS
does not have direct interest in the present case.

Under the rules of court, particularly Rule 19, Section 1;

“Who may intervene,- A person who has legal

interest in the matter of litigation, or in the success of
either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is
so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with
leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
The court shall consider whether or not the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and
whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully
protected in a separate proceeding.

3. Analyzing the clear import of the above-quoted provision, it

would mean that the party invoking the right to intervene in a
pending case shall possess immediate and direct interest so that his
or her right to intervene could ripen into valid cause of action. In the
case of NORDIC ASIA LIMITED v. The Honorable Court of
Appeals, Nam lung Marine Co. LD, Kim Jeong Seoung, G.R. No.
111159 July 13, 2004,legal interest, which entitles a person to
intervene, must be in the matter in litigation and such direct and
immediate character that intervenor will either gain or lose by direct
legal operation and judgment.

4. Applying said rationalization on the case of RMS, it would

readily reveal that its interest over the case is remote or mere
collateral one. RMS is putting much emphasis in its interest arising
from the services it performed in the collection, treatment and
disposal of the vessel-generated wastes by virtue of the
Memorandum of Understanding dated 24 June 2013, Memorandum
of Agreement dated 25 2013, and addendum to the Memorandum of
Understanding &Memorandum of Agreement dated 8 July 2013
entered into by it with the Basalo group using the Corporation GDITI
to have a semblance of legality. However, said undertaking is entirely
different and separate from the contract for the “Establishment and
Operation of Shore Reception and Treatment Facilities for Ships'
Wastes' of GDITI and PPA. Assuming for the sake of argument that
the undertaking between the Basalo group using GDITI and RMS.
The same is an independent contract in relation to the contract
between and among GDITI and PPA. Hence, RMS interest over the
above is not immediate nor direct one.

5. Another requirement so that a complaint for intervention

should be upheld is that whether or not the intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original
parties, and whether or not intervenor's right may be fully protected
in a separate proceeding. In the instant case, defendants through the
undersigned counsel, positively asserts that the filing of intervention
by RMS would unduly delay and prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the parties considering the fact that the parties in the above
entitled case is in a point of forging an agreement to settle the case. So
if and when the intervention be granted would only posed a great
danger on the rights of the original parties in the instant case.

6. Also, it must be taken into consideration that the motion for

leave to file intervention with the attached complaint-intervention
was only filed now where the original parties is about to forge an
agreement. In fact, a Compromise Agreement was already submitted
for the consideration of this Honorable Court by the original parties
in this case. Thus, in the mind of the undersigned counsel, the filing
of the intervention is a clear bad faith on the part of RMS.

7. Further, the rights and interest of RMS could be protected in

a separate proceeding. The interpleader proceeding is not the proper
forum for RMS to lay their claims on GDITI considering that the
office of the interpleader case is to determine who among between
the parties is entitled to the claim if there is a conflicting claim
between parties.

8. It bears stressing that assuming but without admitting

whatever obligation GDITI incurred in favor of RMS the same could
be properly threshed out between GDITI and RMS only, separate and
distinct from the present controversy considering that RMS posed no
legal standing.
 9. All told, it would be of great injustice if not grossly unfair
should the motion for leave to file complaint for intervention be
granted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants through the

undersigned counsel, reverentially prays that an ORDER be issued
denying the Motion for Leave to Intervene with Attached Complaint-
in-Intervention filed by RMS dated 20 March 2015 and instead
approve the already submitted Compromise Agreement of the
parties in this case in the interest of truth, justice and fairness.

Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Manila City. 16 April 2015

BAYAUA & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendants
3rd Floor Gonzalez Building,
#1888 Orense Street,
Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City
Tel Nos. (02) 750-4439; (02)881-7629
Email: bayaualawoffice@gmail.com

By:

ATTY. JORICO F. BAYAUA

IBP Lifetime No. 09572 / 01-13-11
PTR No. 4759324 / 01-09-15 Makati City
Roll No. 47842
MCLE No. IV-0009973
December 5, 2012

COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. ROLITO A. ABING

For defendant Engr. Cirilo C. Basalo
Abing Abrenica Dagcuta & Associates Law Office
Unit 2-L, New Pamplona Lumber Bldg.,
267 Real Street, Pamplona, Las Pinas City

ATTY. LLOYD M. LEQUIN

Unit 1706 17th Floor,
Prestige Tower Condominium,
F. Ortigas, Jr. Road (Emerald Avenue)
Ortigas Center, Pasig City

ATTY ROY LAGO SALCEDO

Ground Floor, kryzl Building
12th St., Cagayan de Oro City,
Misamis Oriental

ATTY. GIL A. VALERA

For Defendant Virgilio S. Ramos
228 Swallow Drive, Greenmeadows
Quezon City

ATTY. BENZON JUDD C. CONG

For plaintiff-Intervenor Fidel L. Cu
Unit 11-A, Lumier Chatteau Building
285 P. Guevarra St., San Juan

ATTY. OLIVER O. OLAYBAL

Counsel for H. Pintang
Guinobatan, Albay

MARCELINO P. ARIAS
For plaintiff-Intervenor Fidel L. Cu
Rm. 201, MN Square Bldg. 678
Shaw Boulevard, Pasig Clity 1600

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 10, Manila

EXPLANATION

That the Comment and/or Opposition is served to the

plaintiffs' counsel through registered mail due to distance constraints
and lack of manpower to effect personal service.
JORICO FAVOR BAYAUA