REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW | Hao

Intervention
Nordic Asia v. CA
Same; Actions; Intervention; Every complaint, including a complaint-in-intervention, must state the
ultimate facts upon which a party relies for his cause of action.—In Republic v. De los Angeles, this Court
ruled that every complaint, including a complaint-in-intervention, must state the ultimate facts upon
which a party relies for his cause of action. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates
the right of another.

Same; Same; Same; Requirements for Intervention.—Jurisprudence has laid down the requirements for
intervention: [a] it must be shown that the movant has legal interest in the matter in litigation; and [b]
consideration must be given as to whether the adjudication of the rights of the original parties may be
delayed or prejudiced, or whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be protected in a separate
proceeding.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between other
parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor
will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.—With respect to the first
requisite, it has been explained that the interest which entitles a person to intervene in a suit between
other parties must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the
intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Otherwise, if
persons not parties to the action were allowed to intervene, proceedings would become unnecessarily
complicated, expensive and interminable. And this would be against the policy of the law. The words “an
interest in the subject” mean a direct interest in the cause of action as pleaded, one that 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. Nordic Asia Limited vs. Court of Appeals, 403 SCRA 390, G.R. No. 111159 June
10, 2003

Salndanan v. Sps. Mendoza

Civil Procedure; Intervention; Intervention is allowed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial
court—after the lapse of this period, it will not be warranted anymore because an intervention is not an
independent action but is ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation.—Intervention is allowed at
any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. After the lapse of this period, it will not be
warranted anymore because intervention is not an independent action but is ancillary and supplemental
to an existing litigation. 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, but under
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, the courts are nevertheless mandated to consider several factors
in determining whether or not to allow intervention. The factors that should be reckoned are whether
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and
whether the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. Salndanan vs. Mendez,
581 SCRA 182, G.R. No. 160280 March 13, 2009
 REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW | Hao

Mactan Cebu International Airport v. Heirs of Miñoza

Same; Same; Intervention; Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in
the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect or preserve a right or
interest which may be affected by such proceedings.—Intervention is a remedy by which a third party,
not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein to enable him, her or it to protect
or preserve a right or interest which may be affected by such proceedings. It 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; the act or proceeding by which a third person becomes
a party in a suit pending between others; the admission, by leave of court, of a person not an original
party to pending legal proceedings, by which such person becomes a party thereto for the protection of
some right of interest alleged by him to be affected by such proceedings.

Same; Same; Same; The remedy of intervention is not proper where it will have the effect of retarding
the principal suit or delaying the trial of the action.—In general, an independent controversy cannot be
injected into a suit by intervention, hence, such intervention will not be allowed where it would enlarge
the issues in the action and expand the scope of the remedies. It is not proper where there are certain
facts giving the intervenor’s case an aspect peculiar to himself and differentiating it clearly from that of
the original parties; the proper course is for the would-be intervenor to litigate his claim in a separate
suit. Intervention is not intended to change the nature and character of the action itself, or to stop or
delay the placid operation of the machinery of the trial. The remedy of intervention is not proper where
it will have the effect of retarding the principal suit or delaying the trial of the action.

Same; Same; Same; The allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound
discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances.—The allowance or
disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration
of the appropriate circumstances. It is not an absolute right. The statutory rules or conditions for the right
of intervention must be shown. The procedure to secure the right to intervene is to a great extent fixed
by the statute or rule, and intervention can, as a rule, be secured only in accordance with the terms of
the applicable provision. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Heirs of Estanislao Miñoza, 641
SCRA 520, G.R. No. 186045 February 2, 2011

GSIS v. Nocom
Remedial Law; Actions; Interventions; Requisites for a Valid Intervention; The legal interest which entitled
a person to intervene must be in the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that
the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of judgment.—In Alfelor v.
Halasan, 486 SCRA 451 (2006), we held that an intervention is valid when a person has: (1) 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
 REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW | Hao

custody of the court or an officer thereof. In Perez v. Court of Appeals, 480 SCRA 411 (2006), this Court
ruled that the legal interest which entitles a person to intervene must be in the matter in litigation and of
such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation
and effect of judgment. Government Service Insurance System vs. Nocom, 543 SCRA 676, G.R. No. 175989
February 4, 2008

Ombudsman v. Maximo Sison

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Intervention; Requisites; The interest, which entitles one to intervene,
must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will
either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.—To warrant intervention
under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation; and (2) intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights
of the parties, nor should the claim of the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate
proceeding. The interest, which entitles one to intervene, must involve the matter in litigation and of such
direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation
and effect of the judgment.

Same; Same; Same; Ombudsman; The Office of the Ombudsman is not an appropriate party to intervene
in the instant case—it must be mindful of its role as an adjudicator, not an advocate.—The Office of the
Ombudsman is not an appropriate party to intervene in the instant case. It must remain partial and
detached. More importantly, it must be mindful of its role as an adjudicator, not an advocate. It is an
established doctrine that judges should detach themselves from cases where their decisions are appealed
to a higher court for review. The raison d’etre for such a doctrine is the fact that judges are not active
combatants in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions
and the appellate court to decide the issues without the judges’ active participation. When judges actively
participate in the appeal of their judgment, they, in a way, cease to be judicial and have become
adversarial instead.

Same; Same; Same; Same; In appeals under Rule 43, the court or, the administrative agency that rendered
the judgment appealed from, is not a party in the said appeal.—The facts reveal that this case was
elevated to the CA via a verified Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 1-95 dated May 16, 1995, which govern appeals to the CA from
judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies. Rule 43, as well as Administrative Circular No. 1-95,
provides that the petition for review shall state the full names of the parties to the case without
impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents. Thus, the only parties in such an
appeal are the appellant as petitioner and appellee as respondent. The court or, in this case, the
administrative agency that rendered the judgment appealed from, is not a party in the said appeal.
Therefore, the Office of the Ombudsman does not have the legal interest to intervene.
 REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW | Hao

Ombudsman; The Office of the Ombudsman is expected to be an “activist watchman,” not merely a
passive onlooker.—It should be noted that the Office of the Ombudsman was aware of the appeal filed
by Sison. The Rules of Court provides that the appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review
with the CA, with proof of service of a copy on the court or agency a quo. Clearly, the Office of the
Ombudsman had sufficient time within which to file a motion to intervene. As such, its failure to do so
should not now be countenanced. The Office of the Ombudsman is expected to be an “activist
watchman,” not merely a passive onlooker. In this case, it cannot be denied that the Omnibus Motion for
Intervention was belatedly filed. As we held in Rockland Construction Co., Inc. v. Singzon, Jr., 508 SCRA 1
(2006) no intervention is permitted after a decision has already been rendered. PETITION for re Office of
the Ombudsman vs. Sison, 612 SCRA 702, G.R. No. 185954 February 16, 2010