Purpose – to afford one, not an original party, yet having a certain right or interest in the pending case, the opportunity to appear and be joined so he could assert or protect such right or interest. Meaning of Interest
- The interest must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and expectant - It must be in the matter in direct legal operation and effect
of the judgment, the interest must be substantial and real - “interest in the subject”= a direct interest in the cause of
action as pleaded, and would put the intervenor in a legal position to litigate a fact alleged in the complaint without the establishment of which plaintiff could not recover
WHO AND HOW Who May Intervene:
1. One who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation; 2. One who has a legal interest in the success of either of the
parties
3. One who has an interest against both parties; or
4. One who 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.
Factors to be Considered by the Court:
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
How to Intervene
a. With leave of court, the court shall consider the 2 factors b. Motion to intervene may be filed at any time before
rendition of judgment by trial court
c. Copy of the pleadings-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties
Jurisprudence
1. While a share of stock represents a proportionate or aliquot interest in the property of the corporation, it does not vest the owner thereof with any legal right or title to any of the property, his interest in the corporate property being equitable or beneficial in nature (Saw v. CA) 2. A purchaser of property in involuntary sales did not
acquire the property from their owners but adverse to them, he could expect no party in the pending suit to safeguard his interest. Hence, the necessity of allowing his intervention (Santiago Land Development v. CA) Intervention Pro Interesse Suo – where the stranger desires to intervene for the purpose of asserting a right in the res which is the subject-matter of litigation, without becoming a formal plaintiff or defendant, and without acquiring control over the course of a litigation, which is conceded to the main action therein
- In equity procedure; analogous to the trial of a right of property in an action of law
- Purpose is to enable a person whose property gets into the clutches of a court, in a controversy between others, to go into court and to procure it or its proceeds to be surrendered to him
- E.g. a person who really owns property or has a superior lien or other interest, sees a litigation spring up between others who assert rights in or concerning it
Though the litigation may not be technically binding on him, because of his not being a party, yet it might well happen that complications would ensue whereby his rights would materially be prejudiced
Republic v. Sandiganbayan – a private party was
allowed to intervene before the Sandiganbayan in a complaint filed with the Sandiganbayan against Marcos by the PCGG where it claims an interest in the property sequestered by the PCGG without asking for an affirmative relief but merely to unite with the defendants in resisting the claims of the PCGG Cases where Intervention Not Allowed:
1. Owner of merchandise lost by reason of collision between two steamships may not be allowed to intervene in an action between the owners of the steamships for damages (Urrutia & Co. v. Baco Rubber Plantation)
164
2. A mere creditor who has a right to the property in litigation in a foreclosure writ cannot be allowed to intervene (HSBC v. Aldecoa & Co.)
3. In an action upon a Promissory Note against a widow, the heir of her deceased husband has no legal interest (Garcia
v. Davis)
4. Reinsurer wanted to intervene in an action for indemnity filed by insured shippers of cargo against insurer. Intervention denied on the ground that it would unduly delay proceedings and intervenor can protect his rights in a separate action (Gibson v. Revilla)
5. A person cannot intervene in an estate proceeding for failure to prove his adoption by the deceased (Lazatin v.
Campos)
6. In an action of the wife abandoned by her husband against the bank to cancel mortgage, the husband cannot intervene after final judgment (Peyer v. Martinez) 7. Intervention was denied for want of sufficient showing
that movant’s right cannot be fully protected in a separate proceeding (Mayuga v. Mayuga)
8. Intervention was denied in proceedings under Act 3135 for the issuance of a writ of possession (GSIS v. CA) Intervention not proper where there is no pending
litigation
Proceeding under Sec. 7, Act 3135 is ex parte DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION, EFFECT ON MOTION Once Intervention is Allowed, Dismissal is Not Proper
- After intervenor has appeared in the action, plaintiff has no absolute right to put intervenor out of court by dismissal of the action
- Parties have no power to waive or otherwise annul the substantial rights of the intervenor
Note the holding in Metro Bank v. RTC-Manila
- The simple fact that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s action does not require dismissal of the action for the intervenor
- An intervenor has the right to claim judgment; right cannot be defeated by dismissal of the suit by the plaintiff after filing the petition and notice to other parties - The trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action does not
require the dismissal of the action of intervenor
- 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, since dismissal of plaintiff’s action did not affect the rights of the intervenor or effect the dismissal of the complaint in intervention The Rulings in Barangay Matictic v. Elbinas and MetroBank v.
Presiding Judge
1. In Matictic, it was held that the dismissal of the main case barred further action on intervention
a. This was an expropriation case filed by the Municipality against private individuals. The Mayor decided to withdraw the case. The Barangay filed a motion for intervention.
b. The RTC, without taking action on the motion for intervention, dismissed the case without prejudice, since it was filed without Presidential approval c. The SC ruled that the Barangay, a part of but a
different political entity, cannot question the dismissal. The dismissal of the motion was unavoidable since the main action ceased to exist
2. In Metrobank, the complaint-in-intervention survived and was allowed to proceed despite dismissal of main action a. Metrobank brought a replevin suit for recovery of
aircon units installed in a building acquired by respondents. Airconditioning company was allowed to intervene and after its complaint-in-intervention was admitted and answers thereto were filed, the case went to trial. Prior thereto, Metrobank and building occupants went into a compromise agreement and dismissed the case.
b. On motion of intervenor, order of dismissal was reconsidered and set aside. RTC allowed the filing of an amended complaint-in-intervention. Metrobank challenged the order
c. SC denied Metrobank (See holding above). There was no final dismissal of the main case since the compromise and joint motion only affected their respective claims but cannot affect the rights of intervenor.
When an intervenor has become party to a suit, trial court cannot dismiss the intervention on the basis of a compromise, unless intervenor was party to the compromise
Since the complaint in intervention was filed before the plaintiff’s action had been expressly dismissed, the intervenor’s complaint was not subject to dismissal
On Estoppel
- As a rule, Intervention is optional (Cruzcosa v.
Concepcion)
- But whether the failure to intervene may be deemed as waiver or estoppel depends on each case (Liguez v. CA) - It is believed that where intervenor’s rights are
interwoven in the pending case and he had due notice of the proceedings, he will be estopped from questioning the decision rendered therein through another action
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR INTERVENTION Effect of Denial – If motion to intervene is denied:
- He has no personality because he has not been allowed to intervene
- Intervenor no longer entitled to notice - Movant did not become a party to the case
- Order of the court denying the intervention is not a decision on the merits of the case, and does not constitute res judicata
Remedy from Denial 1. Appeal
Movant cannot appeal from the decision but only from the order denying the intervention
2. Mandamus
Ordinarily, mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act
Movant must show manifest injustice or palpable excess of authority equivalent to denial of a settled right to which petitioner is entitled, writ shall issue Remedy from Improper Granting of Intervention – party may file a certiorari or prohibition case