Scribd
Upload
42 views

Rule 19 Intervention

Rule 19 of the Rules of Court governs intervention in legal proceedings. A person may intervene if they have a legal interest in the matter at hand, an interest in the success of either party, an interest against both parties, or may be adversely affected by the court's ruling. To intervene, one must file a motion for leave to intervene along with the pleading-in-intervention. The court may deny intervention if it would delay or prejudice the original parties, or if the intervenor's interests can be protected in separate proceedings. Intervention must occur before judgment is rendered by the trial court; it is not allowed after judgment. Substitution is also not allowed to take over a class action suit after the original plaintiff dies

Uploaded by

ANGELINA RAMOS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views

Rule 19 Intervention

Rule 19 of the Rules of Court governs intervention in legal proceedings. A person may intervene if they have a legal interest in the matter at hand, an interest in the success of either party, an interest against both parties, or may be adversely affected by the court's ruling. To intervene, one must file a motion for leave to intervene along with the pleading-in-intervention. The court may deny intervention if it would delay or prejudice the original parties, or if the intervenor's interests can be protected in separate proceedings. Intervention must occur before judgment is rendered by the trial court; it is not allowed after judgment. Substitution is also not allowed to take over a class action suit after the original plaintiff dies

Uploaded by

ANGELINA RAMOS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

RULE 19 INTERVENTION

1. Who may intervene in an action?


A person who:
a. has a legal interest in the matter in litigation;
b. has a legal interest in the success of either of the
parties;
c. has an interest against both; or
d. 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
may, by leave of court, intervene in an action. (RULE
19, SEC 1)

2. What are the requisites of intervention?


The following are the requisites of intervention:
a. the intervenor has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation; or has a legal interest in the success of
either of the parties; or has 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 thereof.
b. the intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the rights of the original parties;
and
c. intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a
separate proceeding. (RULE 19, SEC 1)

3. How may a person intervene in an action?


By filing a motion for leave to intervene. A copy of
the pleading-in-intervention must already be attached to the
motion and served on the original parties. (RULE 19, SECS
1 & 2)
A person whose motion for leave to intervene is
denied by the court has no standing to question the
decision of the court.

4. Intervention is always with leave of court. When may


the court refuse to grant leave to intervene?
The court may refuse to grant leave:
a) if the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties; or
b) if the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in
separate proceedings (RULE 19, SEC. 1)

5. What are the pleadings-in-intervention?


They are –
1. complaint-in-intervention. If the intervenor asserts
a claim against either or all of the original parties;
and
2. answer-in-intervention. If the intervenor unites with
the defending party in resisting the claim of the
plaintiff (RULE 19, SEC. 3)
6. Suppose the trial court has already rendered
judgment, and the case is now on appeal, may
intervention be still allowed?
No more, because the time to intervene is at any
time before- not after- rendition of judgment by the trial
court. (RULE 19, SEC. 3)
After the rendition of judgment by the trial court,
intervention may no longer be allowed. In a case, the
Supreme Court explained the rule his way: “There is
wisdom in strictly enforcing the period set by Rule 19 of the
Rules of Court for the filing of a motion for intervention.
Otherwise, an undue delay would result from many belated
filings of motions for intervention after judgment has already
been rendered because a reassessment of the claim would
have to be done.”

7. Is intervention allowed in a land registration case?


No, intervention is not allowed in a land registration
case, a party wishing to be heard may simply file his
opposition to the application for registration. But if there is
already an order of general default, he should ask for the
lifting of the said order, and if lifted, file an opposition to the
application for registration. This is so because proceedings
in land registration are in rem and not in personam, the sole
object of which being the registration applied for, not the
determination of any right connected with the registration.

8. On September 28, 2000, Gonzales, as a citizen,


taxpayer, and member of the Philippines Bar, filed an
action for prohibition, as a class suit, seeking to
restrain PAGCOR from continuing its operation and
from granting franchise to SAGE, BEST WORLD, and
other penalties. On January 17, 2002, Gonzales died. On
September 10, 2002, Attys. Imbong and Imbong filed a
Motion for Substitution, alleging that they are among
the Filipino citizens, taxpayers, and members of the
Philippine Bar for whom the class suit was instituted by
Gonzales. They, thus, prayed that they may be
substituted in lieu of Gonzales. Is substitution the
proper remedy?
No. substitution is not the property remedy, it must
be noted that Gonzales’s alleged interest does not involve
any claim to money or property which he could have
assigned to another or transmitted to his heirs. Rather, he
claimed to be vindicating his rights as a citizen, taxpayer,
and member of the Philippine Bar. Being personal and non-
transferrable in nature, any interest that he might have had
in the outcome of this case cannot be deemed to have
survived his death. On the other hand, Attys. Imbong and
Imbong are not asserting any right or interest transmitted to
them by the death of Gonzales for there was none, but are
seeking to protect their own individual interests as members
of the class alleged to have been represented by Gonzales,
their remedy, therefore, is not a motion for substitution, but
a motion for intervention.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy