6.

Marcelo Mesina v IAC, Jose Go and Albert Uy

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Interpleader is proper when there is showing of conflicting claims
FACTS:
 Jose Go maintains an account with Associated Bank. He needed to transfer P800,000.00 from Associated Bank to another
bank but he realized that he does not want to be carrying that cash so he bought a cashier’s check from Associated Bank
worth P800,000.00. Associated Bank then issued the check but Jose Go forgot to get the check so it was left on top of the
desk of the bank manager. The bank manager, when he found the check, entrusted it to Albert Uy for the later to safe keep it.
The check was however stolen from Uy by a certain Alexander Lim.
 Jose Go learned that the check was stolen so he made a stop payment order against the check. Meanwhile, Associated Bank
received the subject check from Prudential Bank for clearing. Associated Bank eventually dishonoured the check. It then
received from Atty. Navarro a letter which demands payment on the check in question. However, Atty. Navarro refused to
reveal the name of his client and threatened to sue if payment is not made.
 Unsure of what to do on the matter, Associated Bank filed an action for Interpleader. Naming as respondent, Jose Go and
one John Doe, Atty. Navarro’s then unnamed client. On even date, Associated Bank received summons and copy of the
complaint for damages of a certain Marcelo Mesina (Petitioner) from the RTC of Caloocan City.
 Jose Go and Albert Uy filed their answers to the Interpleader case. However, Petitioner Mesina, instead of filing his answer
to the complaint in the interpleader, he filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction in view of the
absence of an order to litigate, failure to state a cause of action and lack of personality to sue.
 The trial court in the interpleader case issued an order denying the motion to dismiss of Petitioner Mesina and ruling that
Associated Bank’s complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for interpleader. Motion for Reconsideration was also
denied. Therefore, Petitioner Mesina filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction before the IAC seeking to set
aside the order of the RTC denying his Omnibus Motion to Dismiss. The IAC dismissed the said petition. Hence, this
petition to the SC.

ISSUE(S): Whether the IAC erred in affirming the RTC’s decision of granting the action for Interpleader by the Associated
Bank

HELD: No.
RATIO:
 In this case, Petitioner Mesina insists that there is no showing of conflicting claims and interpleader is out of the question.
However, the SC said that there is enough evidence to establish the contrary.
 Considering the aforementioned facts, 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
respondent bank because Petitioner Mesina and Jose Go were both laying their claims on the check, petitioner asking
payment thereon and Jose Go as the purchaser or owner.
 The allegation of Petitioner Mesina that Associated 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 Associated 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.
 Associated Bank filed the interpleader suit because Petitioner Mesina 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 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 respondent bank.