Facts:
Cebu Women’s Club (petitioner) owned the
Cebu School of Midwifery Building and, after a bidding held on
January 7, 1994, awarded the construction to
CAMSAC International Inc. (
CAMSAC), represented by its President/General Manager, architect
Catalino M. Salazar. On
January 26, 1994, the parties executed a construction contract that provided for a
ten percent (10%) retention fee, to be deducted by petitioner from all progress payments, and to be released
thirty (30) calendar days after inspection and acceptance of the project by petitioner and after CAMSAC’s submission of a sworn statement that all obligations, including salaries, materials used, and taxes due in connection with the construction, had been duly paid. On
February 4, 1994, CAMSAC entered into a
“Sub-Contract Agreement” with
Phanu el Senoron (respondent). After about one year, Senoron filed a complaint for
“sum of money with application for a writ of preliminary injunction” against petitioner and CAMSAC anchored on his subcontract agreement, seeking to prevent petitioner from paying or releasing any amount to CAMSAC related to the construction if petitioner would release the 10% retention fee. Petitioner allegedly then received demand letters from suppliers-creditors and from CAMSAC for release of the 10% retention fee, and on
February 22, 1995 petitioner filed
Civil Case No. CEB-17126 for
interpleader and damages against CAMSAC,
Arc Asia Philippines, Inc.,
Triple A Marketing Development Corporation,
Trinidad Patigayon,
Signal Trading Corporation, and
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., seeking to have the adverse claimants interplead to determine their respective rights and claims on the retention fee. On
February 23, 1995, CAMSAC filed a separate action for
sum of money and damages against petitioner for failure to release the 10% retention fee. On
March 9, 1995, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Cebu City, issued the first assailed order dismissing petitioner’s interpleader complaint to prevent multiplicity of suits, reasoning that there already existed a pending case by Senoron against petitioner and CAMSAC involving the retention fee and that giving due course to the interpleader action would result in multiplicity; it further stated that petitioner should have filed an answer in the earlier case and that other defendants could intervene therein. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it in an order dated
April 11, 1995; petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, asserting that the RTC gravely abused its discretion and acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the interpleader complaint, and also challenging the procedural posture and the nature of the questions raised. The Supreme Court denied the petition.
Issues:
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it dismissed petitioner’s
interpleader complaint for alleged multiplicity of suits based on the pendency of related cases, and whether petitioner could properly seek immediate relief through a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 rather than by
certiorari under
Rule 65.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: