1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 19

2001 Edition Intervention

Rule 19
INTERVENTION
This used to be under Rule 12. Now, they are divorced. What is left behind in Rule 12 is Bill of
particulars. And Intervention has been moved to Rule 19. What happened to the original Rule 19? The
original Rule 19 on Judgment on the Pleadings was moved closer to Summary Judgment, to Rule 34.

Q: Define intervention.
A: An INTERVENTION is proceeding in a suit or action in which a third person, not a party to the
case, is permitted by the court to make himself a party to the case. (33 C.J.S. 447)

EXAMPLE: Leo – creditor; Rucel – debtor; Rayda – surety. Rucel and Rayda signed a promissory note
in favor of Leo.

Q: Leo sues Rucel and Rayda. What pleading should Rucel file to protect herself?
A: Rucel should file a CROSS-CLAIM against her co-party Rayda.

Q: Leo sues only Rucel. What is the remedy of Rucel to protect herself?
A: Rucel should file a THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT against Rayda.

Q: What if Rucel does not file a third party complaint against Rayda? What can
Rayda do to be able to join the case?
A: Rayda can, with leave of court, INTERVENE under Rule 19. The initiative should
come from her.

So an intervention is related to a third-party complaint. It is a process by which a stranger or a

third party is included in a case, but with the difference that in a third-party complaint, it is the party
who brought you in. While in intervention, the initiative comes from the third person and he is known
as the intervenor. And the process of entering is called intervention. And take note that a person cannot
simply intervene for the sake of intervening. There must be a legal ground for intervention which can
be found in Section 1:

Section 1. Who may intervene. A person who has a legal interest in the
matter in 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.
(2[a], [b]a, R12)

Q: What are the grounds for intervention?

A: The following are the GROUNDS for intervention:
1.) The intervenor has a legal interest on the matter under litigation;
2.) The intervenor has a legal interest in the success of either of the parties;
3.) The intervenor has a legal interest against both; or
4.) The Intervenor 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.

First Ground: THE INTERVENOR HAS A LEGAL INTEREST ON THE MATTER UNDER
LITIGATION;

EXAMPLE #1: Tarzan died survived by his children. Chita is appointed as administrator of his
estate. Chita filed a case to recover a piece of land which he believes belongs to the deceased. The
children would like to intervene.
Q: Do children have the legal personality or the right to intervene involving the estate of Tarzan?
A: YES, because they have a legal interest in the matter in litigation. If the case will succeed they
will be richer. The property will go to them. (Dais vs. CFI of Capiz, 51 Phil. 396)
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 20
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 19
2001 Edition Intervention

EXAMPLE #2: Suppose Victor filed a case against Ping to recover a piece of land. Victor’s children
(Mary, Rose and Ador) would like to intervene contending that when their father (Victor) would die in
the future, their inheritance is affected.
Q: Can the children of Victor intervene?
A: NO. They cannot intervene the legal interest they are claiming is contingent, expectant – there is
no assurance that your father will die ahead of you. The interest referred to by the law is an interest
that is direct immediate, actual existing interest as distinguished from expectant, inchoate or contingent
interest. (Garcia vs. David, 67 Phil. 279)

How do you distinguish the second example from the first case? In the first case, the father is dead
and you inherit the property. Technically, the property belongs to you. So the right of the heirs over the
property litigated by the administrator is not expectant or inchoate.

Second Ground: THE INTERVENOR HAS A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE SUCCESS

OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES;

So you are interested in the plaintiff winning or the defendant winning.

EXAMPLE : In an action filed by the creditor against the surety only to recover the debt of the
principal debtor without impleading the principal debtor. The principal debtor may intervene if he
would like to join forces with the surety.

Third Ground: THE INTERVENOR HAS AN INTEREST AGAINST BOTH PARTIES;

I am not interested in the victory of either the plaintiff or the defendant. I am interested with my
victory against both. So it becomes a three-cornered fight.

EXAMPLE: Steven Spielberg filed a case against Ridley Scott who has the right to possess the
property and then here I come – I will intervene. I am the one, not both of you, who has the right over
the property. Wala kayong lahat!!! Mga ungas!! So bakbakan na iyon. I have a better right against both
of you.

Fourth Ground: THE INTERVENOR 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.

EXAMPLE: Sonny secures a writ of preliminary attachment against Gemma but the property
attached preliminarily happens to be my property. So I can move to intervene because I am adversely
affected by the distribution.

Can you not file a third-party claim if your property is wrongfully attached? YES you can, but that
is not the only remedy. The law allows the third person to file an intervention in the main action.

INTERVENTION, NOT A RIGHT

Q: Is the intervention a right or a privilege?

A: NO. It is discretionary. A motion for intervention must be filed by the intervenor. And under
Section 1, the court may or may not grant the motion - 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 maybe fully protected in a separate proceeding.

For example, the case between the original parties is about to end, the trial of the case is about to
end and at that point, you will have to intervene. If you intervene, we will start all over again. So, it

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 21

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 19
2001 Edition Intervention

will be dilatory. But even if you will not be allowed to intervene, the court may say that you can file
your case in the future. You can file a separate action later against the parties.

BAR QUESTION: Now, there are some instances by way of exception when intervention maybe a
matter of right. What are these exceptions?
A: The following:
1.) When the intervenor turns out to be an indispensable party; and
2.) Class suit (Section 12, Rule 3)

Rule 3, Sec. 12. Class suit. - When the subject matter of the controversy is
one of common or general interest to many persons so numerous that it is
impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds to
be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of
all concerned may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest
shall have the right to intervene to protect his individual interest. (12a)

Did you notice that last sentence? “Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene.” So, in
other words, in a class suit and you are already included, law says, you have the right to intervene in so
far as your individual interest is concerned. So, that would be another instance where intervention
seems to be a matter of right rather than a matter of discretion.

WHEN AND HOW TO FILE

Sec. 2. Time to intervene. The motion to intervene may be filed at any time
before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-
intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.

Sec. 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-

intervention if he asserts a claim against either or all of the original
parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he unites with the defending party in
resisting a claim against the latter. (2[c]a, R12)

Q: When do you move to intervene?

A: Under Section 2, at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. So, you cannot
intervene when there is already a decision. Tapos na ang kaso. The trial is already terminated. So the
earlier, the better.

And when you file a motion to intervene, the pleading-in-intervention that you want to file should
already be included. Now, under the old procedure, first, you file a motion to intervene. After filing
your motion and your motion is granted, then you file your pleading in intervention. So, motion first
before pleading. That was the old rule.

NOW, sabay na. The copy of the pleading and intervention shall be attached to the motion and
served on the original parties. That is also in consonance with Rule 15 Section 9 on motions in general.

Rule 15, Sec. 9. Motion for leave. - A motion for leave to file a pleading
or motion shall be accompanied by the pleading or motion sought to be admitted.
(n)

So, in other words, when you file a motion for leave, the pleading must already be included in your
motion. An example is a motion to intervene where it must already be accompanied by the pleading-in-
intervention.

Now, what are these PLEADINGS-IN-INTERVENTION? It’s there in Section 3. It’s either a
complaint-in-intervention or an answer-in-intervention. So it DEPENDS:

If you are joining forces with the plaintiff, or you are asserting a claim against both, then you file a
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION. If you are uniting with the defendant to resist the plaintiff, you
file an ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION.

So, these are among the pleadings recognized by the rules. Let’s try to go back to the basic. What
are the types of pleadings allowed by the rules of court? Rule 6, Section 2:
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 22
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 19
2001 Edition Intervention

Sec. 2. Pleadings allowed. The claims of a party are asserted in a

complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or
complaint-in-intervention.
x x x x x

Did you notice that “complaint-in-intervention”? So, we are wondering, ano ba itong complaint-in-
intervention? Actually, that is the pleading referred to now in Rule 19.

Sec. 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. The answer to the complaint-in

-intervention shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order
admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court. (2[d]a,
R12)

In other words, just like any other complaint, it should be answered within 15 days. A complaint-
in-intervention must be answered within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting the same,
unless a different period is fixed by the court. So you have 15 days.

Q: Now, suppose there is an amendment of a complaint-in-intervention. What is the period to

answer?
A: Let us go back to Rule 11, Section 3:

Sec. 3. Answer to amended complaint. Where the plaintiff files an amended

complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the same within
fifteen (l5) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the
amended complaint within ten (10) days from notice of the order admitting the
same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the amended complaint
if no new answer is filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim, amended
cross-claim, amended third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, and amended
complaint-in-intervention. (3a)

Q: What is the period to answer an amended complaint-in-intervention?

A: It is either 10 or 15 days just like answering an ordinary amended complaint.

DISMISSAL OF THE MAIN ACTION; EFFECT ON INTERVENTION

There is a case between Paches and John. Tommy intervened while the case is going on. Suppose
the case was dismissed either by the court or the plaintiff withdrew it. Can the intervention proceed
independently? Can it proceed when there is no more main action? In the case of

BIG COUNTRY RANCH CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

227 SCRA 161 [1993]

HELD: An intervention is merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to the principal

action and not an independent proceeding. It is an interlocutory proceeding dependent on
or subsidiary to the case between the original parties. Where the main action ceases to exist,
there is no pending proceeding wherein the intervention maybe based. If the main action
dies, the intervention dies also.

BUT there is another answer given by the SC in the case of:

METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO. vs. PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC OF MANILA
189 SCRA 820 [1990]

HELD: When the intervention is granted and the main action is withdrawn or
dismissed, it would be unfair to dismiss the intervention. So the intervention proceeds
notwithstanding the withdrawal of the main action.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 23

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 19
2001 Edition Intervention

“The simple fact that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs action does not require
dismissal of the action of the intervenor. An intervenor has the right to claim the benefit of
the original suit and to prosecute it to judgment. The right cannot be defeated by dismissal
of the suit by the plaintiff. Where a complaint in intervention was filed before plaintiff’s
action had been expressly dismissed, the intervenor’s complaint was not subject to dismissal
on the ground that no action was pending.”

So iba na naman ang sinabi. Even if the main action is dismissed, the intervenor can still claim the
benefit of the intervention. So how do you reconcile these conflicting decisions now? Well, I think it
DEPENDS on the ground for intervention. To illustrate:

EXAMPLE #1: The creditor files a case against the surety. The debtor intervened. So, he is joining
the surety. Then creditor withdrew the complaint. What will happen to the intervention? The
intervention cannot go on because the intervention is actually to assist the surety. So, if the complaint
against the surety is dismissed, wala ng utang. There is no more basis to assist the surety. ( BIG
COUNTRY ruling)

EXAMPLE #2: But suppose Paches filed a case against John claiming that she has a superior right to
posses a piece of land. And then Tommy will intervene also claiming that he has the superior right to
possess. So the three of them will fight. And then later, Paches will withdraw the case. What will
happen to Tommy’s intervention? The dismissal of the main action does not mean that Tommy cannot
prove his right against John. The intervention should continue. Bahala ka kung nag-withdraw ka,
basta ako I will continue. I will claim that the land is mine. (METROBANK ruling)

Iyaaaan! It depends on what kind of intervention you are talking about.

Now, there an instance when intervention may be confused with another procedure under Rule 3,
Section 19 on Transfer of Interest. For example: When a property under litigation is sold and there is a
notice of lis pendens, the person who buys is called the TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE. In the case of

SANTIAGO LAND CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

January 28, 1997

FACTS: Rose brought an action against a bank to enforce an alleged right to redeem
certain real properties foreclosed by the bank. With notice of the pending civil action, Leo
purchased from the bank one of the properties subject of the litigation. So Leo is now called
the TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE. And later, Leo filed a motion to intervene. Rose
opposed Leo’s motion for intervention.

ISSUE: Is a transferee pendente lite of the property in litigation has a right to intervene?

HELD: The SC here made a distinction between the rights of a transferee pendente lite
(Rule 3, Section 19) and an intervenor (Rule 19).
“The purpose of Rule 19 on intervention is to enable a stranger to an action to become a
party to protect his interest and the court incidentally to settle all conflicting claims. On the
other hand, the purpose of Rule 3, Section 19 is to provide for the substitution of the
transferee pendente lite precisely because he is not a stranger but a successor-in-interest of
the transferor, who is a party to the action. As such, a transferee’s title to the property is
subject to the incidents and results of the pending litigation and is in no better position than
the vendor in whose shoes he now stands.”
“As such, he stands exactly in the shoes of his predecessor in interest, the original
defendant, and is bound by the proceedings had in the case before the property was
transferred to him. He is a proper, but not an indispensable, party as he would, in any event,
have been bound by the judgment against his predecessor.”
“How then can it legally be possible for a transferee pendente lite to still intervene when,
for all intents and purposes, the law already considers him joined or substituted in the
pending action, commencing at the exact moment when the transfer of interest is perfected
between the original party-transferor and the transferee pendente lite? And this even if the
transferee is not formally joined as a party in the action. Because the transferee pendente lite
Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 24
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure Rule 19
2001 Edition Intervention

simply takes the place of the transferor, he is barred from presenting a new or different
claim.”
“On the other hand, one who intervenes has a choice not to intervene and thus not to be
concluded by any judgment that may be rendered between the original parties to the
action.”

Meaning, if you are a TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE, there is no need for you to intervene
because you are already a (necessary) party. On the other hand, an INTERVENOR can decide whether
or not he wants to join to be bound by the judgment of the main case. So that is the ruling in
SANTIAGO LAND.

There is another case on the issue again of intervention. The case of

FIRST PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS CORP. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

253 SCRA 30 [February 1, 1996]

FACTS: There was a motion to intervene and the trial court denied it.

ISSUE: Is a writ of MANDAMUS available to compel a trial court to grant a motion for
intervention?

HELD: “As provided under Rule 19, Section 1, intervention shall be allowed in the
exercise of discretion by a court. Ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to compel a
discretionary act. But where there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice or palpable
excess of authority equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is entitled, and
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy, the writ shall issue.”


published by

LAKAS ATENISTA 1997 – 1998: FOURTH YEAR: Anna Vanessa Angeles • Glenda Buhion • Joseph Martin Castillo •
Aaron Philip Cruz • Pearly Joan Jayagan • Anderson Lo • Yogie Martirizar • Frecelyn Mejia • Dorothy Montejo • Rowena Panales •
Regina Sison • Ruby Teleron • Marilou Timbol • Maceste Uy • Perla Vicencio • Liberty Wong • Jude Zamora •
Special Thanks to: Marissa Corrales and July Romena

SECOND YEAR: Jonalyn Adiong • Emily Aliño • Karen Allones • Joseph Apao • Melody Penelope Batu • Gemma Betonio •
Rocky Cabarroguis • Charina Cabrera • Marlon Cascuejo • Mike Castaños • Karen de Leon • Cherry Frondozo • Jude Fuentes •
Maila Ilao • Ilai Llena • Rocky Malaki • Jenny Namoc • Ines Papaya • Jennifer Ramos • Paisal Tanjili

LAKAS ATENISTA 2001–2002: REVISION COMMITTEE: Melissa Suarez • Jessamyn Agustin • Judee Uy • Janice Joanne Torres •
Genie Salvania • Pches Fernandez • Riezl Locsin • Kenneth Lim • Charles Concon • Roy Acelar • Francis Ampig • Karen Cacabelos •
Maying Dadula • Hannah Examen • Thea Guadalope • Myra Montecalvo • Paul Ongkingco • Michael Pito • Rod Quiachon •
Maya Quitain • Rina Sacdalan • Lyle Santos •Joshua Tan • Thaddeus Tuburan • John Vera Cruz • Mortmort

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA 25