ANNOTATION

AN ANNOTATION ON INTERVENTION
By
ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO*
_____________________
One of the issues raised on appeal to the Supreme Court
is: May BON-MAR intervene in the proceedings in Civil
Case No. 56393. The Supreme Court ruled in the
affirmative in this manner:
x x x The decision in Civil Case No. 67315 declared
BON-MAR as successor in-interest of the DE GUZMANS.
Thus, BON-MAR is not a mere stranger to the litigation in
Civil Case No. 56393; It is a necessary party who must be
joined in the suit if complete relief is to be accorded as to
those already parties, or for a complete determination, or
settlement of the claim subject of the action. x x x
To understand fully the legal connotation and
implication of intervention, a definition of the term is in
order.
Intervention defined. Intervention is a procedure
whereby persons may intervene in litigation though not
originally a party. In the case of Union Bank of the
Philippines vs. Concepcion, 525 SCRA 672 (2007),
intervention is defined as a procedure by which a third
person, not originally party to the suit, but claiming an
interest in the subject matter, comes
_______________
* Dean, College of Law & Law Professor, Pan Pacific University North
Philippines (PUNP), Urdaneta City and Professorial Lecturer IV and
Consultant (Law and Political Science Cluster, UST Graduate School.)
756

756

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

An Annotation on Intervention
into the case, in order to protect his right or interpose his
claim.
PURPOSE OF INTERVENTION
In the same case cited above, the main purpose of
intervention is to settle in one action and by a single
judgment all conflicting claims of or the whole controversy
among the persons involved.
INTERVENTION DISTINGUISHED FROM
INTERPLEADER
Intervention is distinguished from interpleader in the
following ways:
1.Intervention is an ancillary action, while
interpleader is an original action;
2.Intervention is proper in any of the four situations
mentioned in this rule; while interpleader presupposes that
the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the
action or has an interest therein which in whole or in part,
is not disputed, by the other parties to the action;
3.In a complaint in intervention, the defendants are
already original parties to the pending suit, while in
interpleader, the defendants are being such precisely to
implead them; and a complaint in intervention is not
required to be answered, while a complaint in interpleader
must be answered. (Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium,
National Book Store, March, 1988, p. 125)
THE LAW ON INTERVENTION
Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as
amended provides:
Section1.Who may intervene.A person who has a legal
interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of
757

VOL. 563, AUGUST 29, 2008

757

An Annotation on Intervention
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, 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 intervenors rights may be
fully protected in a separate proceedings.
From the above-quoted provision, we can deduce the six
(6) requisites for intervention. The intervenor must:
1.Have legal interest in the matter in controversy; or
2.Have legal interest in the success of either of the
parties; or
3.Have legal interest against both; or
4.Be 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;
5.Moreover, intervention will not unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of rights of original parties; and
6.Intervenors rights may not be fully protected in a
separate proceedings (Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure
Annotated, Volume I, Central Law Book Publishing Co.,
Inc., P.C 2001, p. 480)
Where the intervenor unites with the defendant, he
intervenes by filing an answer in intervention. If he unites,
with the plaintiff, he may file a complaint in intervention
against the defendant. If he does not ally himself with
either party, he may file a complaint in intervention
against both. (Regalado, supra.)
TIME TO INTERVENE
Section 2 of Rule 19 provides: Time to Intervene.The
motion to intervene may be filed at any time before
rendition of
758

758

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

An Annotation on Intervention

judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading in an

intervention shall be attached to the motion served on the
original parties.
Section3.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.
Section4.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.
RELEVANT CASES
In the case of Angeles vs. Republic, 505 SCRA 724, G.R.
No. 166281, October 27, 2006, the Supreme Court decreed:
x x x The allowance or disallowance of a motion for
leave to intervene and the admission of a complaint-inintervention is addressed to the sound discretion of the
trial court. The discretion of the court, once exercised,
cannot be reviewed by certiorari save in instances where
such discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary or
capricious manner. x x x
Rockland Construction Co., Inc. vs. Senzon, Jr., 508
SCRA 1, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2002, November 24, 2006,
resolves among others that motion to intervene may be
filed at anytime before rendition of judgment by the trial
court, not after.
The Supreme Court ruled:
x x x In granting the motion to intervene, respondent
judge clearly disregarded the rule that motions to intervene
may be filed at anytime before rendition of judgment by the
759

VOL. 563, AUGUST 29, 2008

759

An Annotation on Intervention
trial court. After trial and decision in a case, intervention
can no longer be permitted x x x
This ruling was earlier enunciated in the case of Dungog
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139767, August 5, 2003, 408
SCRA 267.
In the case of Alferor vs. Halasan, 486 SCRA 451, G.R.
No. 165987, March 31, 2006, the Supreme Court
enunciated the four requirements for a valid intervention
to wit:
(1)x x x when a person has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation; (2) or in the success of any of the

parties; (3) or an interest against the parties; (4) or when

he is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the
court or an officer thereof. x x x
These requirements were earlier articulated in the case
of Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162580, July 27,
2006, 480 SCRA 411. The Supreme Court mandated: x x x
The requirements for intervention are: (a) legal interest in
the matter in litigation; and (b) consideration must be
given as to whether the adjudication of the original parties
may be delayed or prejudiced x x x
The above-rulings, were likewise cited in Yao vs. Perello,
G.R. No. 153828, October 24, 2003, 414 SCRA 474; Nordic
Asia Limited vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111598, June
10, 2003, 403 SCRA 390; and Mabaya Farms, Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 140058, August 1, 2002, 386 SCRA
110.
Yau vs. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 126731,
July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 340, explains among others,
intervention in an attachment case.
Said the Supreme Court:
x x x It is recognized that a judgment creditor who has
reduced his claims to judgment may be allowed to
intervene
760

760

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

An Annotation on Intervention

and a purchaser who acquires an interest in the property

upon which an attachment has been levied may intervene
in the underlying action in which the writ of attachment
was issued for the purpose of challenging the attachment.
x x x
In addition, the Supreme Court expounded:
x x x The permissive tenor of the provision on
intervention shows the intention of the Rules to give to the
court the full measure of discretion in permitting or
disallowing the same the rule on intervention was
evidently intended to expedite and economize in litigation
by permitting parties interested in the subject matter, or
anything related therein, to adjust the matter in one
instead of several suits. x x x

o0o

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.