Rule 19 pending action after meeting the conditions and Q: What if Z does not file

INTERVENTION
J and P are solidary debtors for the sum of P100,000.00
because they signed a promissory note in favor of D to
collect the sum of P100,000.00. However, although J signed
the promissory note, he did not get a single centavo.
Everything went to P. Both of them are now sued. According
to J, Actually there is a possibility that I will pay the
P100,000.00 to Dean when actually I did not even get a
single centavo out of it. Everything went to P! Therefore, J
will now file a case against P where he will allege that if J
will be held liable to D, P will reimburse him (J). So, J will
also file a claim in the same action against P.
Sec. 8. Cross-claim. A
cross-claim is any claim by one
party against a co-party arising
out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject
matter either of the original
action or of a counterclaim
therein. Such cross-claim may
include a claim that the party
against whom it is asserted is
or may be liable to the cross-
claimant for all or part of a
claim asserted in the action
against the cross-claimant.(7)
If only solidary debtor is sued what is his remedy if he
wants to involve the other so he can contribute to the
liability?
THIRD (FOURTH, ETC.) PARTY COMPLAINT
Sec. 11. Third, (fourth, etc.)
- party complaint. A third (fourth,
etc.) party complaint is a claim
that a defending party may,
with leave of court, file against
a person not a party to the
action, called the third (fourth,
etc.) party defendant, for
contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief,
in respect of his opponent's
requirements set by the Rules of Court. This
third person who intervened is one who is not
originally impleaded in the action (First Philippine
Holdings Corporation v. Sandiganbayan 253 SCRA 30)
It is a remedy by which a third party, not
originally impleaded in the proceedings,
becomes a litigant therein to enable him to
protect or preserve a right or interest which
may be affected by such proceeding (Office of
the Ombudsman v. Samaniego GR 175573, Sept.
11, 2008).
An intervention cannot alter the nature of the
action and the issues already joined (Castro v.
David 100 Phil. 454).
Intervention is never an independent proceeding but is
ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation. Its
purpose is to enable a stranger to an action to become
a party to protect his interest (Santiago Land
Development Corporation v. CA 267 SCRA 79).
Intervention in an action is neither compulsory nor
mandatory but only optional and permissive
(Mabayo Farms Inc. v. CA GR 140058 August 1,
2002). Hence, the court has full measure of
discretion in permitting or disallowing the same
(Yau v. Manila Banking Corporation GR 126731
July 11, 2002).
This discretion however, must be exercised
judiciously and only after consideration of all the
circumstances obtaining in the case. Thus, where the
substantial interest of the movant in the subject matter
is undisputed, a denial of a motion to intervene is an
injustice (Mago v. CA GR No. 115624 Feb. 25, 1999).
Illustration of intervention:
X creditor; Y debtor; Z surety. Z and Y signed a
promissory note in favor of X.
Q: X sues Y andZ. What
pleading should Z file to
protect herself?
a third party complaint against
Y? What can Y do to be able to
join the case?
A: Y 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.
Denial of motion to intervene does not constitute
res judicata. Remedy of the intervenor is to file a
separate action. (Asuncion vs. Pineda GR No. L-
47924, July 31, 1989)
Factors to be considered by the court in resolving
a motion to intervene:
1. whether or not the intervention will
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the
rights of the original parties; and
2. whether or not the intervenor's rights
may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.
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

276
claim. (12a) A:Z should file a thereof may, with leave of court,
CROSS-CLAIM against her co- be allowed to intervene in the
partyY. action. The court shall consider
If the non-party solidary debtor wants to whether or not the
voluntary join as party- Q: Z sues only Z . What intervention will unduly
is the remedy of Z to protect delay or prejudice the
herself? adjudication of the rights of
Intervention defined. A: Z should file a the original parties, and
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT whether or not the
Intervention is a legal proceeding by which a against Y. intervenor's rights may be
person who is not a party to the action is permitted fully protected in a separate
by the court to become a party by intervening in a proceeding. (2[a], [b]a, R12)

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;
Meaning of legal interest
The legal interest must be one that is actual and
material, direct and of an immediate character, not
merely contingent or expectant so that the
intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal
operation of the judgment. Thus, when the title to the
property has been already declared void by final judgment,
intervention will not revive or reinstate the movants title
derived from the title declared void (Firestone Ceramics v.
CA 313 SCRA 522; Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego).
The assignee of the property who assumed payment
of whatever amount may be finally adjudged against the
assignor may intervene in a proceeding involving the
execution of the property pursuant to a judgment (Robles v.
Timario 6 SCRA 380).
In an action for foreclosure of mortgage, the alleged
owners of the land sought to be foreclosed may intervene
(Roxas v. Dinglasan 28 SCRA 430).
EXAMPLE #1: Tarzan died survived by his children.
Cheeta is appointed as administrator of his estate. Cheeta as
representative of the estate 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)
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 is
interested in the success of 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: S filed a case against R on the issue
who between them has the right to possess the
property. If T claims that he has the right not R or S
then he can intervene in the case between R and S.
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.
Requisites for Intervention
The following requisites must be complied with
before a non-party may intervene in a pending action:
(a) There must be a motion for
intervention filed before rendition of
judgment by the trial court. A motion is
necessary because leave of court is
required before a person may be
allowed to intervene (Section 1);
(b) The movant must show in his motion
that he has a (1) legal interest in (a)
matter in litigation, (b) the success of
either of the parties in the action, or (c)
against both parties, or d)That the
movant 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 (Sec.1)
INTERVENTION, NOT A RIGHT
It is discretionary, thus, 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 a.) whether or not the intervention will unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties and b.) 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.
WHEN AND HOW TO FILE
Sec. 2. Time to intervene.
The motion to intervene
may be filed at any time before
277
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 however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been
answer-in-intervention if he allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule,
unites with the defending party when demanded by the higher interest of
in resisting a claim against the justice . Interventions have also been granted to
latter. (2[c]a, R12) afford indispensable parties, who have not been
impleaded, the right to be heard even after a
Q: When do you move to intervene? decision has been rendered by the trial court,
A: Under Section 2, at any time before rendition of when the petition for review of the judgment has
judgment by the trial court. already been submitted for decision before the
Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has
Remedy after judgment- already become final and executory. (Deogenes O.
Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184589, June
After rendition of judgment, a motion to intervene is barred, 13, 2013) - TDC
even if the judgment itself recognizes the right of the
movant. The remedy of the movant is to file a separate
action. And when you file a motion to intervene, the
pleading-in-intervention that you want to file
Exceptions: should already be included.
1. with respect to indispensable parties, intervention
may be allowed even on appeal (Falcasantos vs. Rule 15, Sec. 9.
Falcasantos GR No. L-4627, May 13, 1952; Motion for leave. - A motion
2. when the intervenor is the Republic (Lim vs. for leave to file a pleading
Pacquing, GR No. 115044, Jan. 27, 1995); or motion shall be
3. Intervention may be allowed after judgment accompanied by the
where necessary to protect some interest which pleading or motion sought
cannot otherwise be protected; and for the purpose to be admitted. (n)
of preserving the intervenor's right to appeal
(Herrera vol. 1 p. 847) So, in other words, when you file a motion for
4. Class suit (Section 12, Rule 3) leave, the pleading must already be included in your
motion. An example is a motion to intervene where it
Rule 3, Sec. 12. Class suit. - When the must already be accompanied by the pleading-in-
subject matter of the controversy is one of intervention.
common or general interest to many persons so
numerous that it is impracticable to join all as Types of pleadings-in-intervention:
parties, a number of them which the court finds 1. COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION if you
to be sufficiently numerous and representative joining forces with the plaintiff, or you
as to fully protect the interests of all concerned asserting a claim against both; or
may sue or defend for the benefit of all. Any 2. ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION if you
party in interest shall have the right to uniting with the defendant to resist
intervene to protect his individual interest. plaintiff,
(12a)
Related procedures under Rule 6-
Intervention is merely collateral or accessory or ancillary to Sec. 2. Pleadings
the principal action, and not an independent proceeding; it is allowed. The claims of a
an interlocutory proceeding dependent on or subsidiary to party are asserted in a
the case between the original parties. Where the main action complaint, counterclaim,
ceases to exist, there is no pending proceeding wherein the cross-claim, third (fourth,
intervention may be based. (Looyuko vs. Court of Appeals, etc.) party complaint, or
G.R. No. 102696, July 12, 2001) complaint-in-intervention.
xxxxx
However, in some cases, the Supreme Court has allowed
intervention after judgment, and in one case even after the Actually a complaint-in-intervention is
judgment had become final and executory, to serve the pleading referred to now in Rule 19.
ends of justice and equity. (Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Miedes, Sr ., G.R. No. 176409, February 27, 2008) Sec. 4. Answer to
complaint-in-intervention.
*** Although Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is explicit on the The answer to the
period when a motion to intervene may be filed. This rule, 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.
Remedy from denial of intervention:
1. appeal, because an order of denial is a final
order; or
2. mandamus, if there is grave abuse of
discretion;
Remedy for the denial of motion to intervene
The remedy of the aggrieved party is APPEAL The
allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court hearing
the case. This discretion, once exercised, is not
reviewable by certiorari or mandamus save in instances
where such discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or
capricious manner. (Gallego vs. Galang, G.R. No. 130228,
July 27, 2004)
FIRST PHILIPPINE HOLDINGS
CORP. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
253 SCRA 30 [February 1, 1996]
FACTS: There was a motion to
are intervene and the trial court denied it.
are
ISSUE: Is a writ of MANDAMUS
are available to compel a trial court to
the 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
278
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
the adequate remedy, the writ shall
issue.
Remedy from an order granting an
intervention:

Certiorari, if there is improper granting
intervention.
Period to answer if complaint-in-intervention is
amended-
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.) 10 from receipt of the order allowing the
amendment if amendment is not a
matter of right; or
b.) 15 days from service of the amended complaint
if amendment is a matter of right.
It is just like answering an ordinary amended
complaint.
DISMISSAL OF THE MAIN ACTION; EFFECT ON
INTERVENTION
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
of 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.
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 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 X filed a case against
Y claiming that she has a superior right to posses a
piece of land. And then T will intervene also claiming
that he has the superior right to possess. So the three
of them will fight. And then later, X will withdraw the
case. What will happen to Tommys intervention? The
dismissal of the main action does not mean that T
cannot prove his right against Y. 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)
Intervention and transferee pendente
lite/distinguished as to rights
Now, an 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: Does a transferee
pendente lite of the property in
litigation have 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 for the
court incidentally to settle all
conflicting claims. On the other
hand, the purpose of Rule 3, Section
19 is to provide for the
279
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.
Procedure for Intervention
1. The intervenor shall file a
motion for intervention
attaching thereto his
pleading-in-intervention. The
pleading to be filed depends
upon the purpose of the
intervention. If the purpose is
to assert a claim against
either or all of the original
parties, the pleading shall be
called a complaint-in-
intervention; If the pleading
seek to unite with the
defending party in resisting a
claim against the latter, he
shall file an answer-in-
intervention (Sec. 3);
2. The motion and the pleading
shall be served upon the
original parties;
3. The answer to the
complaint-in-
intervention shall be
filed within 15 days
from notice of the order
admitting the same,
unless a different
period is fixed by the
courts (Sec. 4)
Reviewer-
Intervention (Rule 19)
INTERVENTION is a legal proceeding by which a
person who is NOT a party to the action is permitted
by the court to become a party by intervening in a
pending action after meeting the conditions and
requirement set by the Rules of Court.
1. Requisites for intervention
Requisites For Intervention (Rule 19, Sec. 1)
1. There must be a motion for intervention filed
BEFORE rendition of judgment.
2. Movant must show in his motion that
a. he has legal interest in the matter in litigation, in the
success of either of the parties in the action, or against
both parties.
b. he is situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court
3. Intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
4. Intervenors rights may not be fully protected in a
separate proceeding.
LEGAL INTEREST one that is actual and material,
direct and of an immediate character, not merely
contingent or expectant.
Intervention is NOT an absolute right (nor is it
compulsory or mandatory), as it is within the courts
discretion to grant the same.
Intervention is an ancillary and supplemental
proceeding to an existing litigation. Thus, the final
dismissal of the principal action results in the denial for
the motion to intervene.
2. Time to intervene (Rule 19, Sec. 2)
Motion for intervention may only be filed BEFORE
judgment is rendered by the trial court.
The motions for intervention were filed after judgment
had already been rendered, indeed when the case was
already final and executory. Certainly, intervention can
no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by
final judgment.
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 may be
based. (Looyuko vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102696,
July 12, 2001)
However, in some cases, the Supreme Court has allowed
intervention after judgment, and in one case even after
the judgment had become final and executory, to
serve the ends of justice and equity. (Office of the
Ombudsman vs. Miedes, Sr ., G.R. No. 176409, February
27, 2008)
*** Although Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is explicit on
the period when a motion to intervene may be filed. This
rule, however, is not inflexible. Interventions have been
allowed even beyond the period prescribed in the Rule,
when demanded by the higher interest of justice .
Interventions have also been granted to afford
indispensable parties, who have not been
impleaded, the right to be heard even after a
decision has been rendered by the trial court,
when the petition for review of the judgment has already
been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court,
and even where the assailed order has already become
final and executory. (Deogenes O. Rodriguez vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 184589, June 13, 2013) - TDC
3. Remedy for the denial of motion to intervene
The remedy of the aggrieved party is APPEAL The
allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court hearing
the case. This discretion, once exercised, is not
reviewable by certiorari or mandamus save in instances
where such discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or
capricious manner. (Gallego vs. Galang, G.R. No. 130228,
July 27, 2004)
280