RULE 62

Q:What is an action for interpleader? (2%)

 An action for interpleader is a special civil action which is filed whenever conflicting claims upon
the same subject matter are or may be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in
the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants, in
which case, he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead
and litigate their several claims among themselves. (Sec. 1, Rule 62, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure).

Q: What courts have jurisdiction over cases filed in Metro Manila in an action for Interpleader to
determine who between the defendants is entitled to receive the amount of P190,000.00 from the
plaintiff?
 An action for interpleader to determine who between the defendants is entitled to receive the
amount of P190,000.00 falls within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts in Metro Manila
(Sec. 33 of BP 129, as amended by RA No. 7691; Makati Dev. Corp. vs. Tanjuatco, 27 SCRA
401).

Q: 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 may file a complaint for interpleader so that the court may resolve the conflicting
claims of A and B over the cashier’s check.

Q: " In which of the following is Interpleader improper?

a. in an action where defendants' respective claims are separate and distinct from each other.
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. "
 (a), Under the Rules, whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be
made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which
in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting
claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. (Rule
62, Sec.1, Rules of Court). Undoubtedly, if the defendants‟ respective claims are separate and
distinct from each other, an action for interpleader is not proper.

Q: "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 filed
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 in his complaint for interpleader because
he was not yet certain as to who was liable therefor.
Resolve the motion with reasons. "
 The motion to dismiss should be granted. Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for
interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances, the amounts of which were obviously
determinable at the time of the filing of the complaint. They are part of Raphael's cause of action
which he may not be split. Hence, when the warehouseman asks the court to ascertain who
among the defendants are entitled to the goods, he also has the right to ask who should pay for
the storage fees and other related expenses. The filing of the interpleader is available as a
ground for dismissal of the second case. (Sec. 4, Rule 2,) It is akin to a compulsory counterclaim
which, if not set up, shall be barred. (Sec. 2, Rule 9, ; Arreza v. Diaz, G.R.