K. INTERVENTION

Question 1

Intervention

Answer 1

A proceeding in a suit or an action by which a third person is permitted by the court to make himself a party, either:

1. Joining plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint,
2. Uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or
3. Demanding something adverse to both of them. [1 Herrera 1117, 2007 Ed., citing Gutierrez v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-11848 (1962)]

Question 2

Requisites for intervention

Answer 2

1. Motion for leave to intervene
2. A legal interest:
   a. In the matter in litigation;
   b. In the success of either of the parties;
   c. An interest against both; or
   d. 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
3. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of the original parties
4. Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding. [Sec. 1, Rule 19; Lorenza Ortega v. CA, G.R. No. 125302 (1998)]

Question 3

Time to intervene

Answer 3

The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. [Sec. 2, Rule 19]

How effected

a. By filing a motion to intervene,
b. Attaching a copy of the pleading-in-intervention, and
c. Serving the motion and pleading-in-intervention on the original parties [Sec. 2, Rule 19]

Question 4

Remedy for denial of motion to intervene

Answer 4

An improper denial of a motion for intervention is correctable by appeal [1 Regalado 324, 2010 Ed., citing Ortiz v. Trent, G.R. No. 5099 (1909) and Hospicio de San Jose v. Piccio, G.R. No. L-8540 (1956)]

But if there is grave abuse of discretion, mandamus will lie, where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy [1 Regalado 324, 2010 Ed., citing Dizon v. Romero, G.R. No. L-26252 (1968) and Macias v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-28947 (1973)]

An improper granting of a motion for intervention may be controlled by certiorari and prohibition. [1 Regalado 324, 2010 Ed., citing Pflieder v. De Britanica, G.R. No. L-19077 (1964)]