WACK WACK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. LEE E. WON alias RAMON LEE and BIENVENIDO A. TAN, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. filed an action for interpleader concerning the ownership of its Membership Fee Certificate No. 201. The Club alleged that two parties assert conflicting claims over the same certificate. Defendant Lee E. Won claims ownership by virtue of a final and executory decision in Civil Case No. 26044 of the CFI of Manila, which ordered the Club to issue a new certificate to him. The Club complied by issuing Certificate No. 201-Serial No. 1478 through a deputy clerk of court. Defendant Bienvenido A. Tan, however, claims to be the lawful owner by virtue of an earlier assignment, holding Certificate No. 201-Serial No. 1199 issued in 1950. The Club, disclaiming any interest, asserted it could not determine the rightful owner without violating its corporate limits, as all 400 authorized certificates were already issued.
The defendants separately moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court granted the motions, dismissing the action on the grounds of failure to state a cause of action and res judicata. The Club appealed, arguing the trial court erred in not compelling the appellees to interplead, as their claims were genuinely conflicting, and that res judicata did not apply due to a lack of identity of parties and causes of action between this case and the prior Manila case.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the Club’s complaint for interpleader.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The ruling hinged on the propriety and timeliness of the interpleader remedy. An action for interpleader is designed to protect a disinterested stakeholder from double vexation concerning a single liability. For the remedy to be timely and proper, the stakeholder must invoke it before committing itself to any of the claimants.
The Court found the Club’s action was filed inexcusably late and thus barred by laches. The Club had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Manila court in the prior case (Civil Case No. 26044) filed by Lee E. Won. In that case, the Club participated, defended itself, and ultimately complied with the final judgment by issuing a new certificate to Lee. By actively litigating and accepting an adverse judgment in that prior suit, the Club effectively recognized Lee’s claim at that time. It cannot, after the fact and having already performed an act in favor of one claimant, turn around and use interpleader to shift the burden of litigation onto the competing claimants. The Club’s proper course was to have filed the interpleader action at the outset, when the conflicting claims first became apparent, not after it had already been subjected to a full trial and had acted upon a final court order. Consequently, the dismissal by the trial court was correct.
