Case Digest (G.R. No. 70145)
Facts:
In Marcelo A. Mesina v. The Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70145, decided November 13, 1986 under the 1973 Constitution, petitioner Marcelo A. Mesina was impleaded in an interpleader suit filed by Associated Bank in RTC Manila (Branch VIII) Civil Case No. 84-22515, after conflicting claims arose over Associated Bank Cashier’s Check No. 011302 for ₱800,000.00, issued December 29, 1983 to respondent Jose Go. Go lost the check inside the bank and immediately procured a “stop payment” order and filed an affidavit of loss. The check was dishonored twice when presented for clearing by Prudential Bank, and later Atty. Lorenzo Navarro, acting for an undisclosed client, demanded payment. Uncertain whom to pay, the bank initiated interpleader on February 2, 1984 naming Go and “John Doe,” later identified as Mesina when the bank learned of a separate damages suit (C-11139, filed January 23, 1984 by Mesina against the bank). Mesina, instead of answering, filed an omnibus motion to d...Case Digest (G.R. No. 70145)
Facts:
- Parties and Instrument
- Associated Bank issued Cashier’s Check No. 011302 dated December 29, 1983 for ₱800,000.00, purchased by Jose Go.
- Go inadvertently left the check on the bank manager’s desk; Bank official Albert Uy took custody.
- Loss and Stop-Payment
- Uy answered a phone call, visited the men’s room, and upon return found the check missing; he advised Go to file a “stop payment” and loss affidavit.
- On December 31, the check was presented for clearing by Prudential Bank and dishonored with “Payment Stopped”; it was again dishonored on January 4, 1984.
- Competing Claims and Interpleader
- On January 9, 1984, Atty. Navarro (unnamed client) claimed possession and demanded payment; Bank refused, citing Go’s ownership.
- Bank filed an Interpleader on February 2, 1984 (Civil Case No. 84-22515), initially naming Go and “John Doe” (later identified as Marcelo Mesina).
- Parallel Damages Suit
- Mesina filed Civil Case No. C-11139 on January 23, 1984 against the Bank for payment of the same check.
- Bank moved to amend interpleader to substitute Mesina; Mesina refused to disclose how he acquired the check, prompting a police report against Alexander Lim for theft.
- Proceedings Below
- Mesina filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss the interpleader for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action; RTC denied and, on November 6, 1984, declared Mesina in default for failure to answer.
- Mesina petitioned the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) by certiorari to annul the denial of his motions and the default order; IAC dismissed the petition on January 22, 1985 and denied reconsideration on February 18, 1985.
Issues:
- Holder in Due Course and Stop-Payment
- Can a stop-payment order validly countermand a cashier’s check in the hands of a putative holder in due course?
- Propriety of Interpleader
- Was filing an interpleader suit proper when a parallel action for the same check was already pending against the Bank?
- Validity of Default Order
- Did the trial court have jurisdiction and authority to declare Mesina in default without a proper order to plead?
- Scope of Certiorari Review
- Did the IAC exceed its certiorari jurisdiction by making factual findings rather than reviewing errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)