Practice question
After the trial court renders judgment, a nonparty seeks intervention solely because joining now seems convenient. The applicant cites no exceptional circumstance and claims an unconditional right to enter before execution. Which is the sound response?
- Every post-judgment request is automatically timely.
- The ordinary Rule19 deadline has passed; any exceptional relaxation requires a genuine legal basis, not convenience alone.
- Execution is the only deadline mentioned in Rule19.
- Intervention is mandatory whenever the applicant asks politely.
- Filing the motion itself vacates the judgment.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — AM19-10-20-SC, current 2019 amendments, Rules18–22.
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html — retained provisions of Rules19–22, read with 2019 amendments.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69736 — Iloilo I Electric Cooperative v Bersamin, GR264260, July30 2024, en banc main decision.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_251180_2025.html — Dee v Union Bank, GR251180, April7 2025, main decision.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.