CIVIL PROCEDURE

2 Semester, AY 2006-2007
nd

Prof. Victoria A. Avena

Syllabus

Part I. Introductory concepts

Part II. Judicial Power

Nature, scope
1987 Constitution
re actual controversies, judicial review – Article VIII, sec. 1
re dec. relief – 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 63, sec. 1 (as
am. by SC Resol. of 2-17-98)
re pres’l./vice-pres’l. elections – Art. VII.4
re matial law/suspension of writ of habeas corpus – Art.VII.18
statutory base of jud’l. review – Civil Code, Art. 7
jud’l. legislation – Civil Code, Art’s 8 & 9

Constitutional protections
constitutional status – Art. VIII, sec’s. 2, 5  R 56.3
re statutory increase of appellate juris. – Art. VI.30

PART III. “Prescribed” Jurisdiction – i.e., over subject matter, by law

Sindico v Diaz (G.R. No. 147444, October 1, 2004) [J of quasi-jud’l. agency]

kinds
general/limited or special
original/appellate
exclusive/concurrent or confluent
territorial
definition/distinguished from exercise
distinguished from venue – Manila Railroad v Atty.-General (20 Phil 523)
general rule = jurisdiction cannot be waived; judgment without jurisdiction w/o
jurisdiction void
Rule 9, sec. 1
Abbain v. Chua (22 SCRA 748)
-- jurisdiction by estoppel = exception
SEAFDEC v. NLRC (206 SCRA 283)
Soliven v. Fastforms Phils. (G.R. No. 139031, October 18, 2004)
cannot be the subject of compromise – Civil Code, Art. 2035
retroactivity – R.A. 7691, sec. 7
once attached, not ousted by subsequent statute unless so provided
Southern Food v. Salas (206 SCRA 333)
PART IV. “Acquired” jurisdiction

A. Over the person

of the plaintiff – Manila Railroad v. Atty.-General (supra; see above)
of the defendant
1) by service of summons – Rule 14, sec’s. 1, 2, & 3
personal service – sec. 6
substituted service – sec. 7
service by publication – sec. 14
extra-territorial service – sec. 15
2) by voluntary appearance – Rule 14, sec. 20
Boticano v. Chu (148 SCRA 541)
3) by voluntary submission
Rodriguez v. Alikpala (57 SCRA 455)

B. Over the res – Rule 14, sec. 15

Banco-Español-Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil. 921)
De Midgely v. Ferandos (64 SCRA 23)

C. Over the issues

Rule 18, sec. 7
Rule 10, sec. 5
Gonzaga v. CA (G.R. No. 142037, October 18, 2004)

PART V. Specific Jurisdiction of Courts

A. Supreme Court
1987 Constitution
Art. VIII, sec. 1, 2, 5 (supra Part II)
Art. IX, A, sec. 7
R. A. 7902; Rule 43
question of law
Urbano v. Chavez (183 SCRA 347)
Ortigas v. CA (106 SCRA 121)
Josefa v. Zhandong Trading Corp. (G.R. No. 150903, December 8,
2003)
change of venue – People v. Sola (103 SCRA 393)
B.P. 129, sec. 9
P.D. 1606, sec. 7

B. Court of Appeals
B.P. 129, sec. 9 (as am. By R.A. 7902)
Rule 43
P.D. 442, as am. By R.A. 6715
St. Martin’s Funeral Home v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866, Sept 16, 1998)
 SC Resol. A.M. No. 99-2-01 (dismissal for non-compliance w/ St. Martin’s
case)
SC Resol. A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (amending Rule 65, sec. 4) [book, p. 731]

C. Regional Trial Courts

B.P. 129 (as am. By R.A. 7691)
-- in ordinary civil actions – sec. 19; R.A. 7691, sec’s. 1, 5
-- in special civil actions and the special proceeding of habeas corpus –
sec.21
-- exclusive appellate jurisdiction – sec. 22
-- special jurisdiction – sec. 23; Rule 1, sec. 4; Rule 143
-- SC Admin. Circular 09-94 (June 14, 1994); R.A. 7691
-- SC Cir. No. 11-99 (transfer to RTC from MTC of cases w/in jurisdiction of
family courts under R.A. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997)
-- CB v CA (208 SCRA 652) [read specially pp. 654-656; 661-665; 673, last
par. – 677, par. after quote; 679-683]
Ascue v. CA (G.R. No. 84330, May 8, 1991)
Negre v. Cabahug Shipping (16 SCRA 655)
Baito v. Sarmiento (109 Phil. 148)
R.47

D. Metropolitan, Municipal, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts

Rule 5, sec. 2
B.P. 129, sec’s. 28, 29, 30, 31, as am. By R.A. 7691; A.O. 33; P.D. 537
- exclusive original jurisdiction
- in civil and estate settlement proceedings/over provisional remedies
- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (1); R.A. 7691, sec’s. 3 & 5
- SC Admin. Circular 09-94 (June 4, 1994)
- in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases
- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (2); R.A. 7691, sec. 3
Lim v. CA (G.R. No. 93451, March 18, 1991)
- in civil actions involving title to or possession of real property
- B.P. 129, sec. 33 (3) as am.; R.A. 7691, sec. 3
Russel v. Vestil (304 SCRA 738)
- delegated jurisdiction – B.P. 129, sec. 34; R.A. 7691, sec. 4; SC
Circular 38-97
- special jurisdiction – B.P. 129, sec. 35

E. Special Rules

Manufacturer’s Distributors v. Yu Siu Liong (11 SCRA 680)

Cruz v. Tan (87 Phil. 627)
Lapitan v. Scandia (24 SCRA 477)
Good Development v. Tutaan (73 SCRA 189)
Part VI. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

A. Scope and Construction – Rule 1, sec’s. 2,3,4,6

B. Uniform procedure – Rule 5, sec. 1
C. Actions
Kinds – Rule 1, sec. 3
Nature
real/personal/mixed
Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena (81 SCRA 75)
in personam/ in rem/ quasi in rem
De Midgely v. Fernandos (64 SCRA 23; supra, Part IV, B)

Rule 1, sec. 5 – commencement

CB v. CA (supra, Part V, C. [emphasis on pp.682-683]
Go v. Tong (G.R. No. 151942, November 27, 2003)
Heirs of Hinog v. Hon. Melicor (G.R. No. 140954, Apr. 12, 2005)
Rule 2 – cause of action
sec. 1 – basis
sec. 2 – definition
Felipe v. Leuterio (91 Phil. 482)
Santiago v. Bautista ( 32 SCRA 188)
Sagrada Orden de Precadores del Santisimo Rosario de
Filipinas v. National Coconut Corporation (92 Phil.
503)
Ma-ao Sugar Central v. Barrios (79 Phil. 666)
Danfoss v. Continental Cement (G.R. No. 143788, Sep. 9,
2005)
sec. 3 – one suit for a single cause of action
sec. 4 – effect of splitting
Rule 16, sec. 1 (e), (f)
sec. 5 – joinder of causes of action
Rule 3, sec. 6
Rule 3.13
Rule 8.2
B.P. 129.33.1
sec. 6 – misjoinder
Union Glass v. SEC (G.R. No. L-64013, Nov. 28, 1983)

D. Parties – Rule 3
 requisites
sec. 1 – who may be parties; Rule 3.15
Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115 SCRA 783)
sec. 2 – parties in interest; Rule 16.1.g
Carillo v. Dabon (G.R. No. 121165, Sep. 26, 2006)
Joya v. PCGG (225 SCRA 568)
Oposa v. Factoran (224 SCRA 792)

kinds
sec. 3 – representatives
sec. 4 – spouses
E.O. 209 (Family Code) – Art’s. 145, 111
sec. 5 – minor or incompetent
sec. 15 – defendants w/o juridical personality
R.A. 6809; Family Code – Art. 5; Rule 14.8; Rule 36.6
sec. 14 – unknown name or identity
sec. 10 – unwilling co-plaintiff
sec. 21 – indigent party
sec. 7 – compulsory joinder of indispensable parties
Arcelona v. CA (G.R. No. 102900, Oct. 2, 1997)
Cerezo v. Tuazon (G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004)
sec. 8 – necessary party
sec. 6 – permissive joinder
Flores v. Mallare-Phillips (144 SCRA 377)
sec. 9 – non-joinder to be pleaded
sec. 13 – alternative defendants
sec. 12 – class suit
Newsweek v. IAC (142 SCRA 171)
Manila Int’l. Airport Authority v. Rivera Village (G.R. No.
143870, Sep. 30, 2005)
sec. 22 – wen Solicitor General required to be party

effects
sec. 11
– misjoinder and non-joinder
sec. 18
– incompetency/ incapacity
sec. 16
– death
sec. 20
– re contractual money claim
Del Castillo v. Jaymalin (112 SCRA 629)
Gojo v. Goyala (35 SCRA 557)
sec. 19 – transfer of interest
sec. 17 – death/ separation of public officer-party

E. Venue – Rule 4
People v. Sola (supra, Part V, A)
Time, Inc. v. Reyes (39 SCRA 303)
Pilipino Telephone v. Tecson (G.R. No. 156966, May 7, 2004)
F. Pleadings

1. In general
Rule 6 – kinds of pleadings
sec. 1 – pleadings defined
sec. 2 – pleadings allowed
Rule 8 – manner of making allegations in pleadings
sec. 1 – form in general
sec. 7 – actionable document
Santiago v. De Los Santos (61 SCRA 146)
Rule 8.1

2. The claim

Rule 6
sec. 2 – where asserted
Rule 8.2
sec. 3 – complaint
sec. 6 – counterclaim
sec. 8 – cross-claim
sec. 9 – counter-counterclaim and counter-cross-claim
sec. 10, par. 2 – reply
Rule 11 – when to file responsive pleadings
sec. 9 – counterclaim/ cross-claim after answer
Namarco v. Federacion (49 SCRA 238)
Rule 6, sec. 12 – bringing in new parties; Rule 1.5
Rule 10, sec. 6 – amended and supplemental pleadings
Young v Sy (G.R. No. 157745, Sep. 26, 2006)
Rule 6, sec. 11 – third-party complaint, etc.
Republic v. Central Surety (26 SCRA 741)
Asian Construction v CA (G.R. No. 160242, May 17, 2005)
Rule 16, sec. 6, par. 2 – counterclaim where claim dismissed thru
Defendant
Rule 17, sec. 2 – dismissal of actions

Compulsory counterclaim/ cross-claim

Rule 6, sec. 7 – compulsory counterclaim

Calo v. Ajax (22 SCRA 996)
Gojo v. Goyala (35 SCRA 557)
Rule 11, sec. 8 – existing compulsory counterclaim/ cross-claim
Rule 9, sec. 2 – barred if not set up
Chavez v. Sandiganbayan (193 SCRA 282)
Cojuangco v. Villegas (184 SCRA 374)
Carpena v. Manalo (12 SCRA 1060)
 Cabaero v. Cantos (G.R. No. 102942, Apr. 18, 1997)
Chan v. CA (G.R. No. 109020) Mar. 3, 1994)
3. The answer

Rule 6
sec. 2 – pleadings allowed
sec. 4 – answer
sec. 13 – answer to third-party complaint, etc.
sec. 5 – defenses
Gojo v. Goyala (supra)
Rule 16, sec. 6 – grounds for dismissal as affirmative
defenses
Rule 8
sec. 10 – specific denial
sec. 11 – allegations deemed admitted
Tec Bi v. Chartered Bank of India (41 Phil. 596)
Phil. Advertising v. Revilla (52 SCRA 246)
Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill (129 SCRA 439)
CB Circular 905
sec. 7 – based on document
sec. 8 – how to contest document
PBC v. CA (G.R. No. 133710, Jan 13, 2004)
sec. 2 – alternative defenses; Rule 3.12
Rule 9, sec. 1 – defense/ objection waived
Katon v. Palanca (G.R. No. 151149, Sep. 7, 2004)

4. The reply

Rule 6 – sec’s. 2 and 10

5. Common Provisions
a) re parts of pleading – Rule 7
Rule 7.4; SC Circular No. 48-2000
Fil-Estate Golf v. CA (G.R. No. 120958, Dec. 16, 1996)
DBP v. CA (G.R. No. 147217, Oct. 7, 2004)
Wee v. Galvez (G.R. No. 147394, Aug. 11, 2004)
Baguioro v. Barrios (G.R. No. L-277, Aug. 30, 1946)
China Bank v. Mondragon (G.R. 164798, Nov. 17, 2005)
Cruz-Agana v. Hon. Santiago Lagman (G.R. No. 139018, Apr. 11,
2005)
b) re manner of making allegations – Rule 8, sec’s. 1 to 11
Perpetual Savings v. Fajardo (223 SCRA 720)
Wee v. Galvez (supra)
c) re effect of failure to plead – Rule 9; Rule 30.9
Cerezo v. Tuazon (supra)
Sps. Delos Santos v. RTC (G.R. No.153696, Sep. 11, 2006)
 Martinez v. Republic (G.R. No. 160895, Oct. 30, 2006)
d) striking out pleadings – Rule 8, sec. 12

6. Amended/ supplemental pleadings – Rule 10; Rule 1.5

Dauden-Hernaez v. de los Angeles (27 SCRA 1276)
Phil. Export v. Phil. Infrastructures (G.R. No. 120384, Jan 13,
2004)
Surigao Mining v. Harris (69 Phil. 113)

7. When to file responsive pleadings – Rule 11

8. Filing/Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other Papers – Rule 13

Rule 13.3 icow Rule 51.9
SC Resolution of February 17, 1998
Bautista v. Maya-Maya (G.R. 148361, Nov. 29, 2005)
GCP-Manny v. Principe (G.R. 141484, Nov. 11, 2005)

9. Computation of Time – Rule 22

Spouses Romero v. CA (G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005)
A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC
Luz v. National Amnesty Commission (G.R. No. 159708, Sep. 24,
2004)
10. Bill of Particulars – Rule 12

G. Summons – Rule 14
- contents, when issued, by whom issued – sec’s. 2, 1, 3, 5
- modes of service
1. voluntary appearance – sec. 20; Rule 16.1.a
2. voluntary submission – Rodriguez v. Alikpala (supra)
3. service in person – sec. 6
Toyota Cubao v. CA (G.R. No. 126321, Oct. 23, 1997)
4. substituted service – sec. 7
Andy Quelnan v. VHF Phil. (G.R. No. 138500, Sep. 16, 2005)
5. extra-territorial service – sec. 15
Guiguinto Credit v. Torres (G.R. 170926, Sep.15, 2006)
Bonnevie v. CA (125 SCRA 124)
Dial Corp. v. Soriano (161 SCRA 737)
Montalban v. Maximo (22 SCRA 1070)
D. Midgley v. Ferandos (supra)
Sahagun v. CA (G.R. No. 78328, June 3, 1991)
R.A. 4883; P.D. 1079
6. by publication – sec’s. 14, 15, 16

- mode of service upon certain defendants

1. upon domestic private juridical entity – sec. 11
Paluwagan ng Bayan v. King (172 SCRA 62)
 2. upon foreign private juridical entity – sec. 12; see Rule 11.2, Rule
14.14 of 1964 Revised Rules of Court
Facilities Management v. De la Osa (89 SCRA 131)
3. upon resident temporarily abroad – sec. 16
Montalban v. Maximo (supra)
4. upon defendant whose identity/ whereabouts unknown – sec. 14
Baltazar v. CA (168 SCRA 354)
- leave of court – sec. 17
5. upon others – sec’s. 8, 9, 10, 13

- return/proof of service – sec’s. 4, 18, 19

H. Motions in general – Rule 15

I. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 16

U.S. v Ruiz (136 SCRA 487); SEAFDEC v. NLRC (supra)

Rule 9, sec. 1
Rule 6, sec. 5 (b)
Rule 7, sec. 5
Rule 39, sec.47
National Union Fire Ins. v. Stolt-Nielsen (184 SCRA 682)
Balo v. CA (G.R. No. 129704, Sep 30, 2005)
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. CA (G.R. 126212, Mar. 2, 2000)
Swagman Hotel v. CA (G.R. 161135, Apr. 8, 2005)
Goodyear v. Sy (G.R. 154554, Nov. 9, 2005)
Morcal v. Laviña (G.R. 166753, Nov. 29, 2005)
Pascual v. Pascual (G.R. No. 157830, Nov. 17, 2005)
Philville v. Javier (G.R. No.147738, Dec. 13, 2005)
Diu v. CA (G.R. No.115213, Dec. 19, 1995)
Berba v. Pablo (G.R. No.160032, Nov. 11, 2005)
Sustiguer v. Tamayo (176 SCRA 579)
Heirs of Licaros v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 157438, Oct. 18, 2004)
Tancuntian v. Gempesaw (G.R. No.149097, Oct. 18, 2004)
Katon v. Palanca (supra)
Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza (115 SCRA 178)
Malion v. Alcantara (G.R. No.141528, Oct. 31, 2006)
Lee Bun Ting v. Aligain (76 SCRA 178)
Villarino v. Avila (G.R. No.131191, Sep. 26, 2006)
Carillo v. Dabon (supra)
Regala v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No.105938, Sep. 20, 1996)

J. Dismissal by claimant – Rule 17

Goho v. Goyala (supra)

K. Judgment on the Pleadings – Rule 34; Rule 18, sec. 2; Rule 9.3
 L. Pre-trial – Rule 18
SC A.M. 03-1-09SC
Jonathan Landoil Int’l. v. Mangudadatu (G.R. No.155010, Aug. 16, 2004)
Paredes v. Verano (G.R. No.164375, Oct 12, 2006)

M. Course of Trial

1. Trial proper – Rule 30

OCA Cir. No. 39-98
SC Cir. 1-89

FANTASTIC REVIEWER 2

2. Kinds of trial

a. consolidated/separate – Rule 31
Section 1. Consolidation. — When actions involving a common question of law or fact
are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated, and it may
make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay. (1)
Section 2. Separate trials. — The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a
separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or
of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues. (2a)

Sps. Yu v. Magno Construction (G.R. No.138701-02, Oct. 17, 2006)

b. trial by commissioners – Rule 32; Rule 67, sec. 5; Rule 30.9
Section 1. Reference by consent. — By written consent of both parties, the court may
order any or all of the issues in a case to be referred to a commissioner to be agreed
upon by the parties or to be appointed by the court. As used in these Rules, the word
"commissioner" includes a referee, an auditor and an examiner. (1a, R33)
Section 2. Reference ordered on motion. — When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the
application of either or of its own motion, direct a reference to a commissioner in the following cases:
(a) When the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account on either side, in
which case the commissioner may be directed to hear and report upon the whole issue or any
specific question involved therein;
(b) When the taking of an account is necessary for the information of the court before judgment, or
for carrying a judgment or order into effect.
(c) When a question of fact, other than upon the pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in any
stage of a case, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. (2a, R33)
Section 3. Order of reference; powers of the commissioner. — When a reference is made, the clerk shall
forthwith furnish the commissioner with a copy of the order of reference. The order may specify or limit
the powers of the commissioner, and may direct him to report only upon particular issues, or to do or
perform particular acts, or to receive and report evidence only and may fix the date for beginning and
closing the hearings and for the filing of his report. Subject to other specifications and limitations stated in
the order, the commissioner has and shall exercise the power to regulate the proceedings in every hearing
before him and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance of his
duties under the order. He may issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, swear witnesses, and unless
otherwise provided in the order of reference, he may rule upon the admissibility of evidence. The trial or
hearing before him shall proceed in all respects as it would if held before the court. (3a, R33)
Section 4. Oath of commissioner. — Before entering upon his duties the commissioner shall be sworn to a
faithful and honest performance thereof. (14, R33)
Section 5. Proceedings before commissioner. — Upon receipt of the order of reference and unless
otherwise provided therein, the commissioner shall forthwith set a time and place for the first meeting of
the parties or their counsel to be held within ten (10) days after the date of the order of reference and shall
notify the parties or their counsel. (5a, R33)
Section 6. Failure of parties to appear before commissioner. — If a party fails to appear at the time and
place appointed, the commissioner may proceed ex parte or, in his discretion, adjourn the proceedings to a
future day, giving notice to the absent party or his counsel of the adjournment. (6a, R33)
Section 7. Refusal of witness. — The refusal of a witness to obey a subpoena issued by the commissioner
or to give evidence before him, shall be deemed a contempt of the court which appointed the commissioner.
(7a R33)
Section 8. Commissioner shall avoid delays. — It is the duty of the commissioner to proceed with all
reasonable diligence. Either party, on notice to the parties and commissioner, may apply to the court for an
order requiring the commissioner to expedite the proceedings and to make his report. (8a, R33)
Section 9. Report of commissioner. — Upon the completion of the trial or hearing or proceeding before the
commissioner, he shall file with the court his report in writing upon the matters submitted to him by the
order of reference. When his powers are not specified or limited, he shall set forth his findings of fact and
conclusions of law in his report. He shall attach thereto all exhibits, affidavits, depositions, papers and the
transcript, if any, of the testimonial evidence presented before him. (9a, R33)
Section 10. Notice to parties of the filing of report. — Upon the filing of the report, the parties shall be
notified by the clerk, and they shall be allowed ten (10) days within which to signify grounds of objections
to the findings of the report, if they so desire. Objections to the report based upon grounds which were
available to the parties during the proceedings before the commissioner, other than objections to the
findings and conclusions therein, set forth, shall not be considered by the court unless they were made
before the commissioner. (10, R33)
Section 11. Hearing upon report. — Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the
preceding section, the report shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall issue an order adopting,
modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part, or recommitting it with instructions, or requiring the
parties to present further evidence before the commissioner or the court. (11a, R33)
Section 12. Stipulations as to findings. — When the parties stipulate that a commissioner's findings of fact
shall be final, only questions of law shall thereafter be considered. (12a, R33)
Section 13. Compensation of commissioner. — The court shall allow the commissioner such reasonable
compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant, to be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or
apportioned, as justice requires. (13, R33)

Angara v. Fedman Devp’t. Corp. (G.R. No.156822, Oct 18, 2004)

3. Incidents/processes
a. calendar of cases – Rule 20
Section 1. Calendar of cases. — The clerk of court, under the direct supervision of the
judge, shall keep a calendar of cases for pre-trial, for trial, those whose trials were
adjourned or postponed, and those with motions to set for hearing. Preference shall be
given to habeas corpus cases, election cases, special civil actions, and those so required
by law. (1a, R22)
Section 2. Assignment of cases. — The assignment of cases to the different branches of a court shall be
done exclusively by raffle. The assignment shall be done in open session of which adequate notice shall be
given so as to afford interested parties the opportunity to be present. (7a, R22)

b. intervention – Rule 19; Rule 11.3

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.
(2[a], [b]a, R12)
Section 2. Time to intervene. — The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of
judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and
served on the original parties. (n)
Section 3. Pleadings-in-intervention. — The intervenor shall file a complaint-in-intervention if he asserts a
claim against either or all of the original parties, or an answer-in-intervention if he unites with the
defending party in resisting a claim against the latter. (2[c]a, R12)
Section 4. Answer to complaint-in-intervention. — The answer to the complaint-in-intervention shall be
filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed
by the court. (2[d]a, R12)

Cf Rule 11. 3

Section 3. Answer to amended complaint. — When the plaintiff files an amended

complaint as a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the same within fifteen (15)
days after being served with a copy thereof.
Where its filing is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint within ten (l0)
days from notice of the order admitting the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the answer to the
amended complaint if no new answer is filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third
(fourth, etc.)—party complaint, and amended complaint-in-intervention. (3a)

Barangay Matictic v. Elbinias Cf. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Presiding Judge, RTC
Manila, Br. 39
no conflict between the two cases.
Did Raycor in Metropolitan have the right to intervene or not?
Original case: Metrobank v. BPI/Uniwide (replevin case)
Reycor files complaint in intervention against Metrobank and BPI/Uniwide as an unpaid vendor

pledge v. chattel mortgage

pledge requires actual physical possession to be valid, chattel mortgage does not require delivery to
the mortgagee

3 liens in the Civil Code:

1. mechanic's lien
2. landlord's lien
3. seller's lien

Intervention v. Joinder

1. in joinder there is only one case; in intervention you are not necessarily joining
the parties unless you are instituting a suit against one or both of them
2. in joinder the cause of action must arise from the same or series of transactions;
this is not a requirement in intervention.

Ordonez is the prevailing doctrine.

Is a person who is a member of a class files a separate action to protect his interest, fall
within the contemplation of intervention in Rule 19 or not? No since he is a member of
the class and not a third-party to a case. He is considered a co-plaintiff. Dismissal or
compromise of a class suit can only be by leave of court; this does not apply to a
complaint-in-intervention which is a complaint in itself.

In actions in rem, members of the public who oppose is not an intervenor but a
respondent party. (e.g., land registration proceedings)

Banana planters file a case against aerial spray of pesticides, can residents affected
intervene? Yes.

Holiday Inn v. Sandiganbayan (186 SCRA 447) – HIIP's cause of action has
nothing to do with the sequestration proceedings by the PCGG against New
Riviera
 Ordoñez v. Gustilo (182 SCRA 469)
Agulto v. Tecson (G.R. No.145276, Nov. 29, 2005)

Intervention is allowed even during appeal (Garcia v. Manriquez)

c. subpoena – Rule 21; Rule 71, sec. 3 (f)

d. Rule 22
Wee v. First Metro (G.R. No.167245, Sep. 27, 2006)