We may proceed to the next topic that is the Special Civil Action.

The first inquiry that we should ask about Special Civil Actions should be this, What is so special about this Civil Action? A Civil Action is just a dispute, a fight between two contestants. They submit their dispute to a court and they ask the court to rule on their contest. And that is essentially the nature of a civil action for that matter either the criminal and so. What is so special about Special Civil Action? Considering that it is a civil action just the same, the first rule would be the 1:32 as to why these civil actions are treated as special by the Rules of Court. First in the Rule 1, if we go back to Rule 1, Rule 1 classifies a Civil Action into an ordinary and special civil action. But Rule 1 also provides that the special civil action is governed by the Rules applicable to all ordinary civil actions. So if the same rules govern all an ordinary civil action in a special civil action there should be not much difference procedurally between the two. But what makes a special civil action special is the phrase that accompanies the classification of an action into ordinary and special. Rule 1 says that although a special civil action is governed by the rules applicable to ordinary civil actions there are special rules procedurally that govern only a particular special civil action. So that we cannot even say that there is a common rule applicable to a common special rule applicable to all special civil action. Each and every special civil action has a unique procedure applicable only to itself not applicable to other special civil actions. SO in order to appreciate why we have an enumeration of special civil actions what we need to do only is to look at certain procedural changes or divisions that are introduce for each and every special civil action. So our premise will still be, we apply the rules that we learned that govern ordinary civil action until we find, we need the special procedure that is assigned solely for this particular special civil action. Rule 2 will give us also an eagling as to why we have special civil action. In Rule 2 it is required that there must be a cause of action. And you know the effect if there is no cause of action in a complaint. It is going to be dismissed. That is one of the grounds for dismissal of an action. But Rule 2 states an ordinary civil action must always be founded on the cause of action. So the implication is that in special civil action we do not need a cause of action which is an erroneous inference. We also need a cause of action so that a special civil action can prosper. There is only few special civil action which do not require cause of action in order to prosper. For instance, unlawful detainer and forcible entry are special civil actions. We

need a cause of action. We need a breach of a contract of lease, non-payment of rental, noncompliance with conditions of lease before a landlord can file a complaint properly for unlawful detainer. And the law requires you first to make a demand. This is jurisdictional in character. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, they all require a cause of action for closure of mortgage there is a need for cause of action, partition there is a need for cause of action. It is again only in very few special civil actions where we dont need a cause of action. And the first cause of special civil action enumerated in the rules is one such special civil action. We do not need a cause of action in a complaint for interpleader. And aside from the absence of a cause of action in an interpleader, we shall see as we go along that there are certain procedural requirements or certain rules of these procedures which apply only to this special civil action of interpleader. If we compare it to an ordinary civil action, that can be seen the same mistake of facts. So that in special civil actions the Rules of Court is not concerned with the question of jurisdiction. That is covered by substantive law by the 129. So when it comes to jurisdiction in special civil actions, we do not consult the Rules of Court. We still consult substantive laws of BP 129 and special statutes that govern jurisdiction of courts. In other words, we also apply to special civil actions unless there is a special procedure which allows it the other ordinary rules that we learned for ordinary civil actions. Instance there is certain factors that must be complied with before we can go to court, before we can properly file a complaint in court like a prior barangay conciliation that is a condition precedent to the accrual of cause of action in ordinary civil cases where the parties are natural persons and they reside in the city or municipality. So if the action is an ordinary civil action, the parties reside in the same city or municipality, they are both natural persons, and the aggrieved party files a complaint in court without undergoing prior barangay conciliation. Well the court can hold the trial in abeyance refer the matter to conciliation before the barangay court or even order the dismissal of the case. So when we follow the procedure we have learn for ordinary civil actions we also follow the rule on pleadings, we need pleadings in special civil action. We also need pleadings in special civil actions unless law as a particular rule requires filing of paper other than the pleading. In an interpleader aside from the fact that an interpleader can prosper even without a cause of action, interpleader does not follow the fundamental procedural principle that an action must

always be commenced with the filing of complaint. That is the first procedural principle that we need in ordinary civil actions. It is a complaint that marks the commencement of a civil action. We also commence an interpleader in a filing of an interpleader. But the rules also allow the commencement of an interpleader not with the filing of a complaint but with the filing of a counter-claim. What is our justification when we say that an interpleader can be commenced with the filing not of a complaint but of a counter-claim. All we need to do is go to the appendix of forms at the back of our Rules of Court, of form number 5. It is a form of approval by Supreme Court form divides that 12:02 the Supreme Court. And in form number 5, an interpleader is given as an example and that example given interpleader is commenced with the filing counter-claim not with the filing of a complaint. Why do we say that in interpleader we dont require the existence or accrual of cause of action? The reason is in Sec. 1 of interpleader, there are conflicting claims presented before a person who does not have interest over the property in the sense or if he has an interest it is not contested by anybody and want of the remedies given to him by law is to file an interpleader. The filing of a complaint of interpleader by the plaintiff in interpleader means that the plaintiff does not have a right which she alleges before the court that is violated by being one of the defendants. That is essentially what is cause of action is all about in ordinary civil actions. There is an allegation of existence of a right and that right has been violated by the act or omission of the defending party. In interpleader commenced to be filing of complaint, the plaintiff in interpleader does not alleged that she has a right. She does not allege that her right has been violated by anyone of the defendants. And yet, the court, the rules allow him to file a complaint. In other words, if there is such a person who has his custody or possession a property but it is the subject of conflicting claims although the conflicting claimants do not dispute the existence of his interest if he has, the law also tells the one in possession of property that he does not have or his duty to file a complaint for interpleader. The law gives him flexibility. He can decide for himself what he will do about the conflicting claimants and then if he cannot make a decision he can just submit problem to the court and let the court decide on the conflict between the two claimants. The usual example that we give to a plaintiff in a complaint for interpleader is a warehouseman. Are you familiar with the warehouse receipts law? The contract involve in a business of

warehousing is a contract of deposit. The warehouseman is in the business of accepting goods for deposit for a fee. He operates a warehouse, clients deposit their goods to the warehouse and their clients agree to pay a fix fee. Under the warehouse receipts law, the warehouseman after he has accepted the goods of his depositors is required by the warehouse receipts law and by the civil code to issue what is called as a warehouse receipt. That is the best proof that there is a contract of deposit between the warehouseman and the depositor. Then the law also says that warehouseman can issue a warehouse receipt that is either negotiable or non-negotiable. So if it is a bearer warehouse receipt that is a negotiable warehouse receipt and if it is a holder warehouse receipts that is likewise a negotiable warehouse receipt. In the ordinary course of things, when the depositor wants to get back his goods, all that he needs to do is go to the warehouseman surrender the negotiable warehouse receipt, it will be cancelled he will pay his fees and he will be allowed to take out of the warehouse the goods that he already deposited. SO it is a very simple business transaction between the warehouseman and the depositor. The interpleader contemplates the situation that after the warehouseman has issued the negotiable warehouse receipt, that is another person or other persons who approached the warehouseman and tell the warehouseman, The goods deposited in your warehouse is covered by a negotiable warehouse receipt do not belong to the depositor. They belong to us. So dont deliver the goods to the depositor. If the warehouseman abuse but I have already issued a negotiable warehouse receipt and it is very likely that the depositor who deposited the goods may already have negotiated the warehouse receipt with another person. So the warehouse man tells the claimant unless he surrenders to me the negotiable warehouse receipt, I will not allow you to get the goods in my warehouse even if you pay for the storage fees. So the warehouseman will be facing a big problem. Will he deliver the goods to the holder of the negotiable warehouse receipt who is willing to surrender the same for cancellation and at the same time the storage fees or will he surrender the goods to a stranger who does not possess a warehouse receipt but to simply claims in a affidavit that he is the owner of the goods and therefore, the goods shall be deliver to him or if there is delivery of the goods, it should not be to the holder of negotiable warehouse receipt. If the warehouseman consults a lawyer and ask for his assistance in solving the problem, the lawyer may (20:43), since you have issued a

negotiable warehouse receipt. You should follow principles governing negotiable instruments. If you deal with a holder in due course of the negotiable warehouse receipt we do not assume any liability if you deliver the goods to the holder in due course of this negotiable warehouse receipt as long as he surrenders the receipt for cancellation as long as he pays for the storage fees agreed upon he will not incur any liability at all. Is that a correct advice? That is not a correct advice. In other words, even if the warehouse receipt is a negotiable warehouse receipt it has been negotiated and the holder is a holder for value in good faith. The warehouseman in order to protect himself assumed ignore the advice of the counsel and ask for another remedy. Most likely that other remedy will be file a complaint for interpleader against the whole victim claimants act. Why do we say that the first advice given concerning a holder in due course of a negotiable warehouse receipt is not a sound advice? If that instrument is a negotiable instrument that will be sound advice. We do not apply in other words the principle of holder in due course to a negotiable warehouse receipt. A negotiable warehouse receipt is not an order to be money, it is just a commitment to hold goods in a warehouse in the form of a deposit. There is no obligation to pay money on the part of the warehouseman. His only undertaking is that he will keep the goods in his warehouse until there is a person who appeals to be entitled to these goods. So what is the use then of the warehouseman issuing the negotiable warehouse receipt if we do not follow anyway the principle of holder in due course in this instrument because this is what the law provides. We do not follow the principles of holder in due course in a warehouse receipt or in a bill of lading. Warehouse receipt or a bill of lading is only a proof of possession of the goods. It is not a proof of ownership, it is not a proof of title unlike a check, a negotiable check or a negotiable promissory note where we apply the principle of holder of in due course. So in our example, if a warehouseman erroneously applies the principle of holder in due course and surrenders the goods to the person in possession thereof. Notwithstanding the claim already filed by a third person previously the warehouseman will be opening himself up for further liability. The third person who claims to be the owner of the goods can rightfully file a case against the warehouseman for damages recovery of liability arising from the wrongful. In order to avoid this possibility that the warehouseman might commit an error if he is going to decide by himself alone the conflicting claims dissented before him by the conflicting claimants

the most practical resort that is available to him, practical in a sense that he will not incur any liability at all is to file a complaint for interpleader against the conflicting claimants. So why will a complaint for interpleader free him from any liability because the conflicting claims will be resolved by a court. And if it is resolve by the court, that decision eventually becomes a final and executory judgment although it may be a wrong decision under our procedural principle of res judicata, that decision will always be the law between the parties to the dispute. In other words, this is just interpleader, in a recourse where a warehouseman will avoid incurring any liability. In 27:08 language, interpleader is a remedy among gamblers which we call Iwas Pusoy not inter-liability if he goes to court and let somebody make the decision as to who is entitled to this conflicting claims. If the warehouseman decides to file a complaint for interpleader of coruse just like in any other civil action the first problem that will be answered, What is the competent court? As we said, we apply BP 129. If it involves personal property then we just go to the value of personal property as alleged in the complaint. So the competent court will either be a Regional Trial Court or it will also be an inferior court. Do we require the warehouseman to undergo prior barangay conciliation? Well yes. If the claimants and warehouseman are natural persons and the 28:46 are the same city or municipality because a special civil action like an interpleader is generally governed by the principles applicable to ordinary civil cases. But you will also notice right away, that in a complaint for an interpleader there will be at least two defendants. It is not proper for warehouseman to file a complaint of interpleader against only one defendant. He should file a complaint against all conflicting claimants. If there are free conflicting claimants, they should all be impleaded as defendants in the action. Is this a special rule applicable to the interpleader? Yes. This is a special rule applicable to an interpleader because in an ordinary civil action we only need one plaintiff and one defendant as long as there is a cause of action but in interpleader there is a plaintiff of course but it is not enough for the plaintiff to implead only one defendant. It should implead two or more persons as defendants. All the conflicting claimants in the recovery of the property should be impleaded. So we have now filed a complaint for interpleader against let us say three defendants. In ordinary civil actions, the next step after the complaint is filed is the issuance of summons. Do we also make use of this process? The answer is yes. The interpleader court will

also issue a summons addressed to the defendants. In order to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendants and in the summons the court will accompany the summons with an order requiring the defendants to interplead, the three defendants to interplead among themselves. So they have to file the respective answers, they have to state in the answer the reasons why they believe that they are entitled to the delivery of the property that is stored in the store room. In an ordinary civil action, we can also have two defendants or three defendants for that matter the rules do not place limit on the as to the number of defendants that can be sued in an ordinary civil action. It is enough that there is one defendant to be sued. But if the plaintiff in an ordinary civil action wants to implead on the parties, he can also implead three defendants in an ordinary civil action. So if we compare a complaint for interpleader against three defendants to that of an ordinary civil action where there is one plaintiff and there are three defendants in so far as the captions is concerned there is really no difference. Just filing the caption plaintiff versus defendants in both cases interpleader and an ordinary civil action. In both cases of course summons will be issued by the court and serve upon the respective defending parties. In an ordinary civil action, if someone says are served upon the three defendants and one defendant does not answer the remedy of the plaintiff of course is to file a motion have a non-answering defendant declare him in default. Do we follow the principle in interpleader? In interpleader, if one of the conflicting claimants fails to file an answer can there be a declaration of default likewise upon the motion by the warehouseman? The answer is yes. We follow the same rules applicable to ordinary civil actions and this special civil action. In ordinary civil cases, if the defending party fails to answer the remedy of the plaintiff is to file a motion to have that party declare in default. We follow the principle. So in the ordinary civil action with three defendants, the non-answering defendants will be declared in default. In the interpleader with three defendants, the non-answering defendant will also be declared in default. So there is no difference between these two cases. So far, in so far as failure to answer is concerned but in the ordinary civil action where one of the defendants is declared in default but the other two defendants are not in default because they file an answer the rule on ordinary civil actions say that there can be no separate judgment against the defendant in default. So the non-answering defendant will be declared in default but the court

cannot render in the judgment by default against him. So it is enough for the court to declare the non-answering defendant in default. But the court will have to try the case based on the answer filed by the answering defendants. So that in this ordinary civil action, if the answering defendants win the case, the defaulting defendant will also win the case. The declaration of default in other words in the ordinary civil action will not cause too much prejudice to the defaulting defendant. It is not correct to say that the defendant will certainly lose the case. There will still be a trial based on the answers filed with the court and if after trial, the court finds merit in the defense system set in the answer, if the answering defendants win the defaulting defendant also win. So this is one instance in an ordinary civil action where the defaulting defendant will end up as the prevailing party. Is that correct to say even in ordinary civil actions that the defaulting defendant will necessarily lose the case? That is not a correct assumption even in ordinary civil actions. This principle is not a product of jurisprudence. This is a product, this is enshrined in the rule itself. You just read the rule on partial default in ordinary civil actions where one defendant answers and the other defendants do not. There is no separate judgment by default. If the answering defendants win the defaulting defendants will also win. The reason why we follow this in partial default is that these defendants in ordinary civil cases must have been sued under the common cause of action. Now we go to our interpleader with three defendants, one of whom does not file an answer and the two other defendants will file their answer. In a complaint for interpleader one of the defendants fails to answer. I said awhile ago, he will be declared in default. If he is declared in default, does it mean to say that he has lost the case? The answer is yes. In interpleader, a defendant who is in default automatically loses the case. Thats the main difference in the rule on partial default in interpleader and the rule on partial default in ordinary civil actions. Stopped at 39:04 minutes