CoA, November 27, 2025, Decision Regarding The Admissibility Of An Appeal Withdrawal Under Rule 265 RoP And The Mootness Of The Intervenor's Appeal, UPC_CoA_70/2025, UPC_CoA_001/2025

An intervenor cannot contradict the party they support

The Court confirms that an intervenor must not act in contradiction to the supported party's procedural acts or declarations. Consequently, the intervenor cannot oppose that party's withdrawal of the appeal.

The intervenor has no independent appellate standing

Procedural steps by an intervenor are permissible only insofar as they support the principal party's requests. The intervenor does not hold an autonomous procedural position. If the supported party exits the proceedings – in the present case through an appeal withdrawal following a settlement – the intervenor's participation becomes inadmissible. Even where both filed appeals, the appeal constitutes a single remedy that cannot be continued independently; the intervenor's appeal therefore becomes moot under Rule 360 RoP.

Limited binding effect where the intervenor was prevented from pursuing the appeal

Although decisions normally bind the intervenor (Rule 316.3 RoP), this effect is restricted when the intervenor was prevented from obtaining appellate review because the main party withdrew. In future proceedings, the intervenor may argue that the first-instance judgment would have been overturned.

Costs follow the treatment of the principal party

Intervenors are generally treated like the supported party with respect to costs. Since the principal party placed itself in the position of the losing party by withdrawing its appeal, the intervenor must bear its own costs.