G.R. No. 70145 November 13, 1986
MARCELO A. MESINA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ARSENIO M. GONONG, in his capacity as Judge of Regional Trial Court — Manila (Branch VIII), JOSE GO, and ALBERT UY, respondents.
Facts:
Jose Go purchased from Associated Bank a Cashier’s Check, which he apparently left on top of the bank manager’s desk. The bank manager appointed Albert Uy, one of its employees, to keep the check for safekeeping. who had a visitor, Alexander Lim. Uy had to answer the phone and when he returned, the check was missing and Lim was gone. Go inquired about his check and upon the knowledge that it could not be found, he was advised to request for the stoppage of payment and executed an affidavit of loss. Uy went to the police to file a report pointing Lim could shed light on the issue.
The bank through Prudential Bank then received the check for clearing which was dishonored twice. After the second time, Atty. Navarro demanded payment for the check with a threat of lawsuit but refused to disclose the name of his client.
The bank filed a complaint for interpleader naming respondent Jose Go and a certain John Doe, which later, was identified as Marcelo Mesina after he filed a complaint for damages against the issuing bank. When Mesina was asked on how the check arrived oh his hands he said Lim paid it to him for a certain transaction. An information was filed instituting the crime of theft against Lim which has been unserved.
Jose Go filed an answer to the interpleader, however, Mesina, instead of filing for an answer, filed a motion to dismiss ex abudante cautela for lack of jurisdiction in view of absence of order to litigate, failure to state cause of action, and lack of personality to sue.
The Associated Bank moved to dismiss the complaint for damages filed by Mesina in view of an already existing case for interpleader.
The RTC ruled on denying Mesina’s motion and was likewise denied after filing a Motion for Reconsideration. The court likewise declared Mesina in default for the expiration of period to file an answer. The trial court ruled in the interpleader case ordering the bank to replace the cashier’s check in favor of Go.
Issue:
Whether the action for interpleader was proper
Held:
Yes. the Associated Bank merely took the necessary precaution not to make a mistake as to whom to pay and therefore interpleader was its proper remedy. It has been shown that the interpleader suit was filed by the bank because Mesina and Go were both laying their claims on the check, particularly, Mesina asking for payment and Jose Go as the purchaser or owner of the said checks.
The allegation of the petitioner that the respondent bank had effectively
relieved itself of its primary liability under the check by simply filing a complaint for interpleader is belied by the willingness of the respondent bank to issue a certificate of time deposit in the amount of P800,000 representing the cashier’s check in question in the name of the Clerk of Court of Manila to be awarded to whoever will be found by the court as validly entitled to it. Said validity will depend on the strength of the parties’ respective rights and titles thereto. Bank filed the interpleader suit not because the petitioner sued it but because the petitioner is laying claim to the same check that Go is claiming. On the very day that the bank instituted the case in interpleader, it was not aware of any suit for damages filed by the petitioner against it as supported by the fact that the interpleader case was first entitled Associated Bank vs. Jose Go and John Doe, but later on, changed to Marcelo A. Mesina for John Doe when his name became known to the respondent bank.
The records of the case show that the respondent bank had to resort to details in support of its action for Interpleader. Before it resorted to Interpleader, the respondent bank took precautionary and necessary measures to bring out the truth. On the other hand, petitioner concealed the circumstances known to him and now that the private respondent bank brought these circumstances out in court (which eventually rendered its decision in the light of these facts), the petitioner charges it with “gratuitous excursions into these non-issues.”
Respondent IAC cannot rule on whether respondent RTC committed an abuse of discretion or not, without being apprised of the facts and reasons why respondent Associated Bank instituted the Interpleader case. Both parties were given an opportunity to present their sides. Petitioner chose to withhold substantial facts. Respondents were not forbidden to present their side-this is the purpose of the Comment of the respondent to the petition. IAC decided on the question by considering both the facts submitted by the petitioner and those given by the respondents. IAC did not act therefore beyond the scope of the remedy sought in the petition