RULE 62.

Interpleader

Q. What is interpleader?

A. Interpleader is a special civil action whereby a person who claims no interest whatsoever
in a property or right, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants,
brings an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate
their several claims among themselves (S1 R62). Interpleader is used to avoid double or
multiple liability on the part of the obligor.

Q. Outline the procedure in interpleader. (CIS MAD)

A.

1) The stakeholder files a complaint against the conflicting claimants.

2) Upon the filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order requiring the conflicting
claimants to interplead with each other.

3) Summons shall be served upon the conflicting claimants, together with a copy of the
complaint and order.

4) Within the time for filing an answer, each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on the
ground of impropriety of the interpleader or on other grounds in S16.

5) Each claimant shall file his answer setting forth his claim within 15 days from service of
summons, serving a copy upon each of the other conflicting claimants who may file their
reply thereto. A claimant who fails to timely file his answer may, on motion, be declared in
default and thereafter the court may render judgment barring him from any claim regarding
the subject matter.

6) The court shall proceed to determine the respective rights of the conflicting claimants and
to adjudicate their several claims.

Q. Plaintiff engaged X to construct a water tank for him for a price of P1,000,000.
Plaintiff withheld delivery of the last payment of P30,000 to X since X’s supplier S had
made a claim to the same. Unable to determine who between X and S is entitled to the
P30,000 payment, Plaintiff filed with the RTC of Las Piñas City an action for
interpleader against X and S to determine who between them is entitled to the
P30,000. X filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction
over the action. Should the motion to dismiss be granted?

A. Yes. The MeTC has no jurisdiction over the case since the amount subject of the
interpleader does not exceed P400,000. Under B.P. Blg. 129, the MTC has jurisdiction over
civil actions where the value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does
not P400,000. (See Makati Dev’t Corp. v. Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA 401 [1969]).

However, where the subject of the interpleader is not the possession or title of real or
personal property but the performance of a service, it is clear that the RTC has jurisdiction
as the subject thereof is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Q. Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X Corporation,
and Y Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein that the three
corporations claimed title and right of possession over the goods deposited in his
warehouse and that he was uncertain which of them was entitled to the goods. After
due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the court declaring that X Corporation
was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and executory.

Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of P100,000

for storage charges and other advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation alleged that
Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for
storage fees and advances and that for his failure, he was barred from interposing his
claim. Raphael replied that he could not have claimed storage fees and other
advances in his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet certain as to who
was liable therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons. (05 Bar Q4).

A. I would deny the motion to dismiss grounded on res judicata.

An interpleader suit is not based on a cause of action since there is no act or

omission by which the defendants violated the right of the complainant. The complainant is
simply seeking to compel the defendants to interplead among themselves. Hence, res
judicata and splitting of cause of action would not apply since the complaint is not based on
a cause of action.

X Corporation’s allegation that Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for
interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances is incorrect since joinder of causes of
action shall not include special civil actions like interpleader. (S5 R2).

Q. Bliss Development Corporation (BDC) is the registered owner of Lot No. 27. In
1984, BDC executed a deed of sale over the property in favor of the Spouses Megazo.
The Spouses Melgazo allegedly transferred their rights to Nacua. Further assignments
of rights were made and eventually the rights were transferred to Diaz. BDC executed
a contract to sell in favor of Diaz and received payments for Lot 27 from Diaz.

Later, Arreza claimed that the Spouses Melgazo had sold the rights over the
property to him. To resolve the conflicting claims of Arreza and Diaz, BDC filed a
complaint for interpleader against them before the RTC of Makati City. In March 1996,
the RTC ruled that the signatures of Sps. Melgazo transferring their rights to Nacua
were forged and thus Arreza had a better right over the property. This decision
became final and executory.

In August 1996, Diaz filed a complaint for sum of money against BDC and
Arreza before the RTC of Makati City. Diaz argued that BDC’s representations led him
to believe that he had a good title over the property, but due to the court ruling in the
interpleader case, he was constrained to transfer the property to Arreza. Diaz prayed
for reimbursement from BDC and Arreza. In their respective answers, BDC and Arreza
argued that Diaz’ complaint for reimbursement is barred by res judicata since it
should have been raised in the interpleader suit. Are BDC and Arreza correct?
A. Arreza is correct in his argument that Diaz’ complaint for reimbursement is barred by res
judicata. Diaz’ complaint is in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim which should have
been raised in the interpleader suit. Not having been raised, the same is barred pursuant to
S2 R9.

However, BDC is not correct in its argument that DIaz’ complaint for reimbursement
is barred by res judicata. The essential elements of res judicata are not present. First, the
interpleader case was between Arreza and Diaz. While it was BDC that initiated the
interpleader case, the opposing parties in that prior case are, in fact, Arreza and Diaz.
Second, the issues resolved in the interpleader case revolved around the conflicting claims
of Arreza and Diaz, and not whatever claim either of them may have against BDC. Thus,
there is no identity of parties, nor identity of subject matter, between the interpleader case
and the complaint for sum of money. (Blizz Dev’t Corp. v. Diaz, 5 August 2015, Velasco, J.).

Q. Lessee Zuellig Pharma filed an action for interpleader against Petitioner and
Philippine Bank of Communications to determine who between them is entitled to the
rental payments. Petitioner failed to file its answer and was declared in default upon
motion of Zuellig. Petitioner argued that Zuellig filed the interpleader case to compel
Petitioner and the Philippine Bank of Communications to litigate their claims. Thus,
“declaring a claimant in default would ironically defeat the very purpose of the suit.”
Is the argument of Petitioner correct?

A. No. In this case, Zuellig filed the interpleader case to extinguish its obligation to pay rent.
Its purpose in filing the interpleader case “was not defeated” when the Makati trial court
declared Petitioner in default. At any rate, an adverse claimant in an interpleader case who
fails to answer within the required period may, on motion, be declared in default pursuant to
S5 R62. The consequence of the default is that the court may “render judgment barring [the
defaulted claimant] from any claim in respect to the subject matter.” The Rules would not
have allowed claimants in interpleader cases to be declared in default if it would “ironically
defeat the very purpose of the suit.” (Lui Enterprises v. Zuellig Pharma, 12 March 2014).

Q. Who pays the docket fees on the conflicting claims subject of the interpleader
suit?

A. The conflicting claimants themselves. Since the defendants-in-interpleader are actually

the ones who make a claim - only that it was extraordinarily done through the procedural
device of interpleader - then to them devolves the duty to pay the docket fees prescribed
under S7 R141. S7 R62 pertains only to docket fees for initiating the interpleader suit itself,
not the claims subject thereof, since the one who initiated the interpleader suit claims no
interest whatsoever in the subject matter. (Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development
Bank, 24 September 2012).