Rule 19

Intervention

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

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.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

20

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 19
Intervention

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)
EXAMPLE #2: Suppose Victor filed a case against Ping to recover a piece of land.
Victors 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

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

21

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 19
Intervention

whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
of the original parties and whether or not, the intervenors 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 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-inintervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.
Sec. 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. The intervenor shall file a complaint-inintervention 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.

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

22

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Rule 19
Intervention

Now, what are these PLEADINGS-IN-INTERVENTION? Its there in Section 3. Its 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. Lets try to go back to the
basic. What are the types of pleadings allowed by the rules of court? Rule 6, Section 2:
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

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

23

Rule 19
Intervention

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition
the intervention maybe based.
also.

If the main action dies, the intervention dies

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.
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 plaintiffs action had been expressly dismissed, the
intervenors 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 Tommys 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 Leos 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

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

24

Rule 19
Intervention

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

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 transferees 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 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 Alio Karen Allones Joseph Apao Melody Penelope Batu Gemma Betonio
Rocky Cabarroguis Charina Cabrera Marlon Cascuejo Mike Castaos Karen de Leon Cherry Frondozo Jude Fuentes
Maila Ilao Ilai Llena Rocky Malaki Jenny Namoc Ines Papaya Jennifer Ramos Paisal Tanjili
LAKAS ATENISTA 20012002: 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

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition

Property of LAKAS ATENISTA

Rule 19
Intervention

26