Intervening in a court case

“INTERVENTION is a proceeding in a suit or action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plaintiff, or demanding something adversely to both of them” (Garcia, et al., v. David, et al, G.R. 45454, April 12, 1939).

“[It] is the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes a party in a suit pending between others;… [a] person becomes a party [with leave of court] for the protection of some right or interest alleged…” (Garcia, et al., v. David, et al, G.R. 45454, April 12, 1939 citing 33 C. J. 477).

The leave can be availed of by filing a motion attaching the complaint-in-intervention or answer-in-intervention.

“Fundamentally, therefore, intervention is never an independent action, but is ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation. Its purpose is not to obstruct nor unnecessarily delay the… machinery of trial, but merely to afford one not an original party… the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interest” (Garcia, et al., v. David, et al, G.R. 45454, April 12, 1939).

The Philippine Rules on Intervention finds its roots in the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. The three important elements, as paraphrased, are: that only a person having a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, may intervene;

(2)that a mere intruder or stranger may not be allowed to intervene; and

(3)that a judge is given the full measure of discretion in permitting or disallowing the motion for intervention (Garcia, et al., v. David, et al, G.R. 45454, April 12, 1939).

The court when faced with a motion for intervention ‘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 [more] fully protected in a separate proceeding’

“What qualifies a person to intervene is his or her possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both; or when he or she is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or an officer thereof” (Republic v. Rubin, G.R. 213960, October 07, 2020).

“[T]he Court has ruled that such interest must be of a direct and immediate character so that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment. The interest must be actual and material… more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire; it must not be indirect and contingent, indirect and remote, conjectural, consequential or collateral” (G.R. 213960, October 07, 2020).

The court when faced with a motion for intervention “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 [more] fully protected in a separate proceeding” (Section 1, Rule 19, 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure).

The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before the rendition of judgment by the trial court (Section 2, Rule 19).

“After the lapse of this period, it will not be warranted anymore… [since] intervention is not an independent action but is ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation” (Ongco v. Dalisay, G.R. 190810, July 18, 2012).

“It can be readily seen that intervention is not a matter of right, but is left to the trial court’s sound discretion. The trial court must not only determine if the requisite legal interest is present, but also take into consideration the delay and the consequent prejudice to the original parties that