UP Law BGC Eve 2024 Mesina v.

IAC
Civil Procedure Special Civil Actions  Interpleader (Rule 62) 1986 Paras
SUMMARY DOCTRINE
When Jose Go purchased a Cashier’s Check from Associated It is proper for a bank to file an action for impleader to take
Bank, the check was lost. Eventually, the lost check was necessary precaution not to make a mistake as to whom to pay
presented to the bank by Mesina demanding that he be paid with regard to an allegedly stolen cashier’s check.
since he is the holder of the check. SC ruled that it was proper
for Associated Bank to file an action for impleader as precaution
not to make mistake as to whom to pay.

FACTS

 Jose Go purchased from Associated Bank the Cashier’s Check for P800,000. Unfortunately, Go left the check on the desk of the
bank manager when he left the bank. The manager entrusted this to Albert Uy who also left the check on the table. Uy had a
visitor at that time (Alexander Lim), and when he returned to his desk, the check was gone; so is Alexander Lim. Jose Go was
advised to accomplish a “STOP PAYMENT” order and execute an affidavit of loss.
 2 days later, the lost check was presented to Associated Bank from Prudential Bank. It dishonored the check due to the STOP
PAYMENT order. Days later, a certain Atty. Navarro demanded the payment of the check which was being held by his client.
Later, police requested Prudential Bank to identify who tried to encash such check.
 RTC
o February 2: Unsure what to do, Associated Bank filed an action for interpleader naming Jose Go and “John Doe” (Atty.
Navarro’s client) as respondents.
o On the same date, Associated Bank received summons for complaint for damages of a certain Marcelo Mesina which
was filed on January 23. (C-11139 case)
o Learning about who John Doe is, Associated Bank amended its complaint substituting Mesina for John Doe.
Simultaneously, Associated Bank informed the police of the matter. Mesina, after being asked by the police, stated that
the check was merely paid to him by Alexander Lim in a “certain transaction” without further elucidation.
o (An information for theft was filed against Lim but as of the filing of this petition remains unserved because of Lim’s
successful evasion.)
o Mesina, instead of filing an Answer in the interpleader case, filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundante Cautela
alleging lack of jurisdiction and failure to state cause of action and lack of personality to sue.
o Associated bank, in the damages case, moved to dismiss since there already exists an interpleader case.
o RTC denied Mesina’s Motion to Dismiss since the complaint sufficiently pleaded cause of action for interpleader.
o RTC issued an order declaring Mecina in default for failing to file an Answer.
 IAC
o Mesina filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction. (assailing the orders in the interpleader case)
o IAC dismissed the petition.
o Meanwhile:
 RTC ruled in the interpleader case, ordering Associated Bank to replace the check in favor of Go.
 RTC ruled in the damages case that the issue is moot and academic because of the interpleader decision.
 SC
o Mesina raised the case to the SC with the following arguments:
 IAC erred in ruling that a cashier’s check can be countermanded even in the hands of a holder in due course.
 IAC erred in countenancing the filing of an interpleader suit by a party who had earlier been sued on the same
claim.

RATIO

W/N it was proper for Associated Bank to file the action for interpleader?

YES.

 Interpleader was the proper remedy. Associated Bank merely took the necessary precaution not to make a mistake as to
whom to pay. The interpleader suit was filed because Mesina and Go were both laying their claims on the check, Mesina
asking payment and Go as the purchaser or owner of the check.
 Mesina cannot allege that Associated Bank had effectively relieved itself of its primary liability under the check by filing of the
suit. This is belied by the willingness of Associated Bank to issue a certificate of time deposit in the amount of PhP 800,000
representing the cashier’s check in the name of the Clerk of Court of Manila to be awarded to whoever will be found by the
court as validly entitled to it.
 Associated Bank filed the suit not because Mesina sued it but because Mesina is laying claim to the same check that Go is
claiming. When Associated Bank instituted the interpleader case, it was not yet aware of any suit for damages against it. This
is supported by the fact that the suit initially impleaded a John Doe instead of Mesina.

W/N the cashier’s check can be countermanded even in the hands of a holder in due course?

YES, in this case.

Rule
 The holder of a cashier's check who is not a holder in due course cannot enforce such check against the issuing bank which
dishonors the same. If a payee of a cashier's check obtained it from the issuing bank by fraud, or if there is some other reason
why the payee is not entitled to collect the check, the respondent bank would, of course, have the right to refuse payment of
the check when presented by the payee, since respondent bank was aware of the factssurrounding I he loss of the check in
question.
 In this case
 Theories and examples advanced by Mesina on causes and effects of a cashier’s check such as 1) it cannot be
countermanded in the hands of a holder in due course and 2) a cashier’s check is a bill of exchange drawn by the bank against
itself are general principles which cannot be aptly applied to the case at bar without considering other things. Mesina failed to
substantiate his claim that he is a holder in due course and for consideration or value. He became a holder of the cashier’s
check as endorsed by Lim who stole the check. He refused to say how and why it was passed to him. He had therefore notice
of the defect of his title over the check from the start.
 The check in question suffers from the infirmity of not having been properly negotiated and for value by respondent Jose Go
who as already been said is the real owner of said instrument.

FALLO

Petition is DENIED.