G.R. No. L-70145 November 13, 1986
Marcelo A. Mesina, petitioner, 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, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Jose Go purchased a cashier’s check for P800,000.00 from Associated Bank but inadvertently left it on the bank manager’s desk. The check, entrusted to bank official Albert Uy, went missing, with circumstances pointing to Uy’s visitor, Alexander Lim. Go immediately executed a stop-payment order and an affidavit of loss. The check was later presented for clearing through Prudential Bank but was dishonored by Associated Bank. Atty. Lorenzo Navarro subsequently demanded payment on behalf of an unnamed client holding the check. Associated Bank, facing conflicting claims from Go and the unknown holder, filed an interpleader action naming Go and a “John Doe” as defendants.
Petitioner Marcelo A. Mesina was later identified as Navarro’s client and was substituted for John Doe in the interpleader case. Mesina, instead of filing an answer, moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court denied his motion and, upon Go’s motion, declared Mesina in default for failing to file an answer within the prescribed period. Mesina then filed a petition for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) to annul these orders, but the IAC dismissed his petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in upholding the trial court’s denial of Mesina’s motion to dismiss and the subsequent order declaring him in default in the interpleader case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed orders. The Court found that Associated Bank properly availed of the remedy of interpleader under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The bank was a mere stakeholder confronted with adverse claims over the same cashier’s check from Jose Go, the purchaser who lost it, and Marcelo Mesina, the possessor who demanded payment. The bank had a legitimate fear of double vexation, making interpleader appropriate to compel the rival claimants to litigate their claims among themselves.
The trial court’s order requiring the parties to file their answers was, in substance, a valid order to interplead. Mesina’s refusal to answer, based on his claim of being a holder in due course, was unjustified. His default was a consequence of his own procedural choice to file a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, after the court had properly directed him to plead. The IAC correctly found no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court, as the interpleader complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action and the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules. The petition was deemed dilatory.