MARCELO A. MESINA 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 Facts: 1. Private respondent Jose Go purchased from Associated Bank Cashiers Check for 800,000. 2. Respondent Jose Go unfortunately left the check on top of the desk of the bank manager. 3. The bank manager entrusted the check to Albert Uy, a bank official, for safekeeping. Albert Uy had a Alexander Lim as a visitor during that time. 4. Uy had to answer a phone call and went to the mens room. 5. When he returned, his visitor Alexander Lim was gone. When Jose Go asked for the check, Uy failed to find it and was not in his folder. 6. Uy advised Jose Go to go to the bank to accomplish a STOP PAYMENT order, which Go immediately followed. Go also executed an affidavit of loss. 7. Uy went to the police to report the checks loss, and pointing out Alexander Lim as the one who could expla in the matter. 8. Police records show that Associated Bank received the lost check for clearing on Dec 31, 1983 coming from Prudential Bank, Escolta Branch. 9. The check was immediately dishonored by Associated Bank sending it back to Prudential Bank, stamped with the words Payment Stopped. 10. The check was again returned to Associated Bank but again dishonored. 11. Respondent Associated Bank received a letter, from Atty. Lorenzo Navarro demanding payment regarding the check in question, being held by his client. Atty. Navarro, refusing to give the name of the bearer of the check in the person of his client, also threatened to sue if the payment is not made by Associated Bank. 12. Associated bank replied in a letter saying that the check belonged to Jose Go, who lost it in the bank and laying claim to it. 13. Police sent a letter to Prudential Bank, requesting to identify the person who wants to encash the check. Prudential Bank refused, saying they had to protect the clients interest. 14. Respondent Associated Bank filed an action for Interpleader naming Jose Go and one John Doe (Atty. Navarros client) as respondent. 15. Respondent Associated Bank received summons and copy of complaint for damages of a Marcelo Mesina(herein petitioner) from RTC of Caloocan. 16. Respondent Associated Bank moved to amend is complaint having been notified for the first time that the name of Atty. Navarros client was Marcelo Messina. 17. Respondent Associated Bank through Albert Uy informed the Western Police District that the lost check was in the possession of Petitioner Mesina. Police asked Mesina of how he obtained the check. Mesina said that it was paid to him by Alexander Lim in a certain transaction. 18. An information for theft was instituted against alexander Lim. A warrant of arrest was issued, being it remained unserved because of Lims successful evasion. 19. Jose Go filed his answer in the interpleader and moved to participate as intervenor. 20. Albert Uy filed a motion for intervention in the interpleader. 21. In the pre-trial conference, it was disclosed that John Doe was petitioner Marcelo Mesina. 22. Petitoner Mesina, instead of filing an answer, filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Ex Abudante Cautela alleging lack of jurisdiction, failure to state cause of action and lack of personality to sue. 23. TC denied motion to dismiss of Petitioner Mesina. Pet. Mesina filed MR. Denied. 24. Respondent Judge issued an order declaring Mesina in default since the period to file an answer already expired. 25. Respondent judge set the ex-parte presentation of evidence. 26. Pet. Mesina filed a petition for certiorari before the IAC setting aside the Omnibus Motion and order of default. 27. IAC dismissed petitioner Mesinas petition. Pet. Mesina filed and MR. Denied. 28. TC rendered a decision in the interpleader case ordering the Respondent Associated Bank to replace the check. 29. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WON erred in countenancing the filing and maintenance of an interpleader suit by a party who had earlier been sued on the same claim HELD: No. Petitioner stubbornly insists that there is no showing of conflicting claims and interpleader is out of the question. There is enough evidence to establish the contrary. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, respondent 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 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 that 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 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 wig 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 petitioner sued it but because 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 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. Petitioner assails the then respondent IAC in upholding the trial court's order declaring petitioner in default when there was no proper order for him to plead in the interpleader case. Again, such contention is untenable. The trial court issued an order, compelling petitioner and respondent Jose Go to file their Answers setting forth their respective claims. Subsequently, a Pre-Trial Conference was set with notice to parties to submit position papers. Petitioner argues in his memorandum that this order requiring petitioner to file his answer was issued without jurisdiction alleging that since he is presumably a holder in due course and for value, how can he be compelled to litigate against Jose Go who is not even a party to the check? Such argument is trite and ridiculous if we have to consider that neither his name or Jose Go's name appears on the check. Following such line of argument, petitioner is not a party to the check either and therefore has no valid claim to the Check. Furthermore, the Order of the trial court requiring the parties to file their answers is to all intents and purposes an order to interplead, substantially and essentially and therefore in compliance with the provisions of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. What else is the purpose of a law suit but to litigate? Petition Dismissed. IAC decision affirmed.