Such direction shall be made if the interest of justice

Interpleader Intervention so requires (Sec. 2, Rule 62, Rules of Court)

a SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION, NOT ORIGINAL but MERELY

INDEPENDENT, and ANCILLARY and DEPENDS
ORIGINAL upon existence of a PLEADING
MOTION TO DISMISS
ACTION
Within the time for filing ANSWER
COMMENCES at FILING COMMENCED by a MOTION
OF THE COMPLAINT FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
(15 Days from service of summons in accordance with Sec. 5
FILED BY PERSON WITH FILED by a person with LEGAL of Rule 62) each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on
NO INTEREST on the INTEREST on: (grounds):
Subject Matter 1) SUBJECT MATTER of
OR LITIGATION a) Impropriety of interpleader action
WITH INTEREST must 2) SUCCESS of either of
not be disputed by the PARTIES b) On other appropriate ground specified in Rule 16
CLAIMANTS 3) INTEREST against (Sec. 4, Rule 62, Rules of Court)
BOTH
4) ADVERSELY Section 1. Grounds. Within the time for but before filing the
AFFECTED by answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion
Disposition or
to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:
Distribution of
property in custody
(a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of
of court or officer
the defending party;
DEFENDANTS brought If COMPLAINT-IN-
into action-because they INTERVENTION is FILED (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
are SUED and DEFENDANTS are already
matter of the claim;
IMPLEADED as such in parties to existing suit (not by
COMPLAINT intervention) by original suit
(c) That venue is improperly laid;

(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;

WHO PAYS THE DOCKET FEES?
(e) That there is another action pending between the
PERSON WHO FILES THE COMPLAINT PAYS THE DOCKET FEES same parties for the same cause;
AND OTHER LAWFUL FEES.
(f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment
or by the statute of limitations;

TAKE NOTE: (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause
of action;
THESE FEES, AS WELL AS THE COSTS AND LITIGATION EXPENSES,
SHALL CONSTITUTE (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's
pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise
A LIEN OR CHARGE UPON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE extinguished;
ACTION, UNLESS THE COURT
(i) That the claim on which the action is founded is
SHALL ORDER OTHERWISE (SEC. 7, RULE 62, RULES OF COURT) enforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds; and

(j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not
been complied with. (1a)
SUMMONS ORDER TO INTERPEAD

TAKE NOTE
1. SUMMONS shall be served upon conflicting claimants. Served
together with summons a COPY of the COMPLAINT and the THESE GROUNDS which apply to ORDINARY CIVIL CASES are
ORDER (Sec. 3, Rule 62, Rules of Court). also made applicable to and may be invoked in an interpleader
action.

Example:
2. The ORDER that shall be served with summons and copy of
complaint refers to the order requiring the conflicting claimants
refers to ORDER requiring the conflicting claimants to
interplead with one another.
ORDER shall be issued upon filing of the complaint (
Sec 2, Rule 62, Rules of Court)
3. Aside from the order requiring claimants to interplead with
one another, the court may include in the order a direction that
the subject matter of the action be paid or delivered to court.
1. A motion to dismiss may be filed on gorund that
court has no jurisdiction over the SM of action. A
complaint for interpleader (with value of P 300,000)
involving chattels was filed with the RTC.
2. A motion to dismiss may also be filed on the
ground that court has no jurisdiction over a
defendant who was not summoned to suit or invalidly
served with summons.
IMPROPRIETY OF THE INTERPLEADER ACTION
1. The ground of impropriety of filing of a complaint for
interpleader specified in Sec. 4 of Rule 62 is a special
and separate ground not found in Rule 62.
2. To be proper, requirements of Sec. 1 of Rule 62
should be complied with such as the existence of
conflicting claims be made by the claimants upon the
same SM.
What happens when allegations in the complaint do not show
conflicting claims between or among the persons required to
interplead?
The complaint is subject to dismissal on the ground
of IMPROPRIETRY of the interpleader.
Not a failure to state a cause of action under Rule 16-
meaning of action in ordinary civil action does not
exactly apply to interpleader.
TAKE NOTE:
WHERE CLAIMS ARE NOT CONFLICTING BECAUSE THEY
REFER TO DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS, AN INTERPLEADER
WILL NOT ALSO LIE AND A DISMISSAL BASED ON IMPROPRIETRY
OF THE ACTION MAY BE INVOKED.
THERE COULD ALSO BE IMPROPRIETRY WHERE IT
APPEARS FROM ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE
PLAINTIFF CLAIMS AN INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT
IS DISPUTED BY THE CLAIMANTS.
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF FILING A MOTION TO DISMISS ON
THE PERIOD TO ANSWER?
1. PERIOD TO FILE ANSWER IN INTERRUPTED OR TOLLED
BY FILING OF MOTION TO DISMISS.
TAKE NOTE: IF MOTION IS DENIED, THE MOVANT MAY FILE
ANSWER WITHIN THE REMAINING PERIOD TO ANSWER (NOT
LESS THAN 5 DAYS IN ANY EVENT, COUNTED ON NOTICE OF
DENIAL OF SUCH MOTION)
(SEC. 4, RULE 63, RULES OF COURT)
TAKE NOTE:
THE FIVE-DAY PERIOD RECKONED FROM THE NOTICE OF
DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS THE SAME PERIOD
APPLICABLE WHEN A MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 16
(SEC. 4) IS DENIED AND WHEN A MOTION FOR BILL OF
PARTICULARS UNDER RULE 12 (SEC. 5) IS DENIED.
Wack Wack Golf and Country Club v. Won and Tan
G.R. No. L-23851 March 26, 1976
Castro, C.J
Facts:
Claiming to be the owner of a membership fee certificate, Lee
Won filed a complaint against Wack Wack Golf and Country
Club. Wack Wack, however, knows that another person, Tan,
was also claiming the ownership of the same membership fee
certificate 201. Hence, Wack Wack defended the case against
Won. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of Won and
the decision became final and executory. Subsequently,
however, Wack Wack filed a complaint of interpleader against
Won and Tan. Wack Wack alleged that Won claims ownership
of the certificate by virtue of the decision rendered in the civil
case while Tan claims ownership of the said certificate by virtue
of membership fee certificate 201-serial no. 1199 issued to him
on July 24, 1950 pursuant to an assignment made in his favor by
the original owner and holder of membership fee certificate
201. Defendants however moved to dismiss the complaint on
the ground of res judicata and prescription.
Issues:
Whether the complaint of interpleader was barred by res
judicata and prescription?
Held:
Yes, the complaint of interpleader is barred by res judicata and
prescription. A stakeholder should use reasonable diligence to
have the contending claimants to court. He need not await
actual institution of independent suits against him before filing
a bill of interpleader. He should file an action of interpleader
within a reasonable time after a dispute has arisen without
waiting to be sued by either of the contending claimants.
Otherwise, he may be barred by laches or undue delay. But
where he acts with reasonable diligence in view of the
environmental circumstances, the remedy is not barred. In this
case, Wack Wack was aware of the conflicting claims of the
defendants with respect to the membership fee certificate 201
long before it filed the present interpleader suit. It had been
recognizing Tan as the lawful owner thereof. It was sued by
Won who also claimed the same membership fee certificate. Yet
it did not interplead Tan. It preferred to proceed with the
litigation and to defend itself therein. Therefore, it is too late for
it to invoke the remedy of interpleader.
.
Prepared by: Dominic Eloja Embodo