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. (Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of
Transportation and Communications, G.R. Nos. 169914 and 174166, March 24, 2008,
549 SCRA 44, 49). 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. (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Presiding Judge, RTC
Manila, Br. 39, G.R. No. 89909, September 21, 1990, 189 SCRA 820, 824).
Section
1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court states:
SECTION 1. Who may
intervene. — A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or
in the success of either of the parties, or 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 may, with leave
of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court 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 fully protected in a separate proceeding.
Under this Rule, intervention shall be allowed 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 custody of the court or an officer thereof. (Alfelor v. Halasan, G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 451, 460). Moreover, the court must
take into consideration 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 right or interest can be adequately pursued and
protected in a separate proceeding (MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS. HEIRS OF ESTANISLAO MIÑOZA, G.R.
NO. 186045, 2 FEBRUARY 2011, SECOND DIVISION, PERALTA, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.