6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly members’ unfounded and grossly exaggerated claim. After the intervention was granted, petitioners were able to discharge the attachment over vessel by putting up a counterbond. Jibfair Shipping filed a motion to dismiss, while all the other defendants failed to file responsive pleadings. As a result, the RTC declared all the defendants, except Jibfair Shipping, in default and directed respondents to present their evidence ex-parte. Respondents presented their evidence in four separate hearings. Petitioners, who were admitted as intervenors, did not attend any of the four hearings. Later, petitioners took up the cudgels for the defaulting defendants by filing a motion to lift order of default and/or to expunge ex-parte evidence. The RTC eventually rendered a decision, ordering the defendants to pay, among others, the wages of the crewmen and Nam Ung Marine Ltd.’s agency fees and other expenses incurred for manning the vessel during its last voyage. It further ordered the counterbond posted by petitioners to answer for all the awards. Petitioners appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 21343 (the “Appeal Case”). Subsequently, upon motion by respondents, the RTC issued an order of execution pending appeal. In response, petitioners instituted another action with the Court of Appeals to question the execution pending appeal. This second case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 13874 (the “Certiorari Case”). The Certiorari Case was first disposed of by the Court of Appeals. The order of execution pending appeal was affirmed in all respects, excluding the portion allowing the immediate execution on moral damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and interest, as they cannot be the subject of an execution pending appeal. This decision eventually became final and executory. As for the Appeal Case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC in all respects and dismissed the appeal. It is this decision that was elevated to the Court through a petition for review on certiorari. The Court, in its June 10, 2003 decision, dismissed the petition based on two grounds: 1) Petitioners have no right to intervene because the complaint-in-intervention fails to state a cause of action and because the requisites for intervention are not present; and 2) Petitioners are guilty of forum shopping. The Court ruled that the allegations contained in the complaint-in-intervention failed to state a cause of action. It is required of every complaint, including a complaint-inintervention, to state the ultimate facts upon which a party relies for his cause of action.[2] The Court found that petitioners’ complaint-in-intervention failed to satisfy this requirement. Petitioners, in their motion for reconsideration, insist that their cause of action springs from the bloated and exaggerated claims of respondents so that nothing will be left to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/45348 2/5