RULE 62

Interpleader

PRACTICAL EXERCISE:

Answer the following bar questions:

1. 1998 BAR QUESTION1.Rule 62, Section 1

1998 BAR Q. NO. VIII (1): What is interpleader?

Under civil procedure in the Philippines, interpleader is a legal remedy used when a person or entity
(the stakeholder) holds property or money that is claimed by two or more other parties. The
stakeholder can file an interpleader action in court to compel the claimants to litigate among
themselves to determine who is entitled to the property or money. This protects the stakeholder
from multiple liabilities and ensures that the rightful claimant receives the contested item.

Rule 62, Section 1

1998 BAR Q. NO. X (3): A lost the cashier's check she purchased from XYZ Bank. Upon being notified
of the loss, XYZ Bank immediately issued a "STOP PAYMENT" order. Here comes B trying to encash
that same cashier's check but XYZ Bank refused payment. As precautionary measure,what remedy
may XYZ Bank avail of with respect to the conflicting claims of A and B over the cashier's check?
Explain.

XYZ Bank should file an interpleader action in court.

The legal basis for this remedy is found in the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 62 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, which governs interpleader actions.

By filing an interpleader action, XYZ Bank can avoid multiple liabilities and ensure that the court
decides who is entitled to the cashier's check. This protects the bank from potential lawsuits from
both A and B1.

The interpleader action is a precautionary measure that allows XYZ Bank to fulfill its duty to the
rightful claimant while protecting itself from conflicting claims.

2. 2005 BAR QUESTION

Rule 62, Section 5

2005 BAR Q. NO. IV: 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 P100,000.00
for storage charges and other advances for the goods.X Corporation iled 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 his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet certain as to who was liable
therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons.
X Corporation filed a motion to dismiss Raphael's complaint for storage charges on the ground of
res judicata should be denied.

Section 47 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Philippines provides the legal
basis for the move to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata. The legal doctrine known as "res
judicata," which means "the matter has been adjudged," prohibits a court from reconsidering
cases that it has already decided in a final and executory ruling. This doctrine guards against
numerous lawsuits involving the same parties and subjects and assures that court decisions are
final.

In this case, Raphael could not have included his claim for storage fees and advances in the
original interpleader complaint because he was uncertain as to who was liable for these fees at
that time. The purpose of the interpleader was to determine the rightful owner of the goods, not
to resolve ancillary issues like storage fees. Once the court determined that X Corporation was
entitled to the goods, Raphael could then properly file a separate claim for storage fees against
X Corporation, as the liability for these fees became certain only after the court's decision.

Hence, The motion to dismiss should be denied. Raphael’s claim for storage fees is distinct from
the interpleader action, and could not have been included earlier due to the uncertainty of who
was liable. Therefore, res judicata does not apply in this situation, and Raphael can pursue his
claim against X Corporation for the storage charges.

3. 2012 BAR QUESTION

Rule 62, Section 1

2012 BAR Q. NO. 50: In which of the following is Interpleaderimproper?

a. in an action where defendants' respective claims are separate and distinct from each other.
Rule 62 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in the Philippines explains interpleader as a remedy for a
party who is uncertain over conflicting claims to property or money. The essential requirement is
that the conflicting claims should pertain to the same subject matter to protect the stakeholder
from multiple liabilities.

When the claims are separate and distinct, the stakeholders aren't facing multiple liabilities over a
single subject; rather, they are dealing with independent obligations or disputes. As such, interpleader
isn’t appropriate because it doesn't provide protection from multiple suits over the same issue. This
undermines the fundamental purpose of the interpleader, which is to consolidate these claims into
one proceeding to resolve who the rightful claimant is.

b. in an action by a bank where the purchaser of a cashier's check claims it was lost and another
person has presented it for payment.
C. in an action by a lessee who does not know where to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the
property.
d. in an action by a sheriff against claimants who have conflicting claims to a property seized by the
sheriff in foreclosure of a chattel mortgage.

4. 2018 BAR QUESTION

Application of the elements of litis pendentia in relation to interpleader

2018 BAR Q. NO. VII: Dory Enterprises Inc. (Dory) leased Digna Corporation (Digna) a parcel of land
located in Diliman, Quezon City. During the term of the lease, Digna was informed by DBS Banking
Corporation (DBS) that it had acquired the leased property from the former owner Dory, and required
Digna to pay the rentals directly to it. Digna promptly informed Dory of DBS' claim of ownership. In
response, Dory insisted on its right to collect rent on the leased property. Due to conflicting claims of
Dory and DBS over the rental payments, Digna filed a complaint for interpleader in the RTC of Manila.
Digna prayed that it be allowed to consign in court the succeeding monthly rentals, and that Dory and
DBS be required to litigate their conflicting claims. It later appeared that an action for nullification of a
dacion en pago was filed by Dory against DBS in the RTC of Quezon City. In said case, Dory raised the
issue as to which of the two (2) corporations had a better right to the rental payments. Dory argued
that, to avoid conflicting decisions, the interpleader case must be dismissed. Does the action for
nullification of the dacion en pago bar the filing of the interpleader case? (2.5%)

The action for nullification of the dacion en pago does not bar the filing of the interpl
eader case.

Under Rule 62 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure allows for interpleader actions to resolve
conflicting claims over the same subject matter, even if there are related cases pending.

In this case, the interpleader action filed by Digna is appropriate because it seeks to resolve the
conflicting claims of Dory and DBS over the rental payments. The action for nullification of the
dacion en pago is a separate issue that does not bar the interpleader case. The interpleader
action ensures that Digna is not subjected to multiple liabilities and that the rightful claimant to
the rental payments is determined by the court.

The action for nullification of the dacion en pago does not bar the filing of the interpleader case.
The interpleader action is a proper remedy to resolve the conflicting claims of Dory and DBS
over the rental payments, and it should proceed independently of the nullification case.

1. PRACTICAL EXERCISE:

Answer the following bar questions:

1. 1998 BAR QUESTION

1998 BAR Q. NO. VIII (2): A student files action for declaratory relief against his school to determine
whether he deserves to graduate with Latin Honors. Is this action tenable? (3%)

The action for declaratory relief is not tenable in this case because the matter of graduatin
g with Latin Honors is an academic decision, which the school has the discretion to determine.

Under Rule 63 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Declaratory relief is available when a person
wants the court to determine his rights or obligations under a statute, contract, or other written
instrument before an actual breach or violation occurs.

In this case, the student's action for declaratory relief seeks a judicial determination of his right to
graduate with Latin Honors. However, the issue here is not about interpreting a statute, contract, or
written instrument. It's about whether the student has met the academic standards and requirements
set by the school for Latin Honors. Such determinations are usually within the purview of the
academic institution's discretion and not a matter for declaratory relief.

The action for declaratory relief is not tenable in this case because the matter of graduating with Latin
Honors is an academic decision, which the school has the discretion to determine. It does not involve
the interpretation of a statute, contract, or written instrument, thus falling outside the scope of Rule
63.

3. 2012 BAR QUESTION

Rule 63, Section 5

2012 BAR Q. NO. 21: In a declaratory relief action, the court may refuse to exercise its power to
declare rights and construe instruments in what instance/s?

a. When a decision would not terminate the controversy which gave rise to the action.
b. In an action to consolidate ownership under Art. 1607 of the Civil Code.
C. To establish legitimate filiation and determine hereditary rights.
d. (a) and (c) above
1. PRACTICAL EXERCISE:

Answer the following bar questions:

2011 BAR QUESTIONS

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

Rule 64,Section 1 in relation to Article DX, Section 7,1987 Constitution

2011 BAR O. NO. (26) What is the proper remedy to secure relief from the final resolutions of the
Commission on Audit?
(A) Petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
(B) Special civil action of certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
(C) Special civil action of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
(D) Appeal to the Court of Appeals.

2011 BAR Q. NO. (57): The decisions of the Commission on Elections or the Commission on Audit may
be challenged by
(A) petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
(B) petition for review on certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42.
(C) appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 54.
(D) special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the Supreme Court.

2. 2022 BAR QUESTION

Rule 64, Section 3

REMEDIAL LAW II 2022 BAR Q. NO. 1: Give the reglementary periods for filing the following: ... (e)
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64.

The reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is 60 days from the notice of
the judgment, order, or resolution, or from the denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial.