DIGEST/MARIE BOLANDO/INTERPLEADER: CEBU WOMAN'S CLUB VS. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA

CEBU WOMAN'S CLUB (PETITIONER) VS. LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch VI, Cebu City, CAMSAC INTERNATIONAL, INC. & PHANUEL SEÑORON (RESPONDENTS)

FACTS:

The petitioner seeks to set aside the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which dismissed its complaint for interpleader and damages against private respondent CAMSAC International Inc., Arc Asia Philippines, Inc., Triple A Marketing Development Corporation, Trinidad Patigayon, Signal Trading Corporation and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., due to the pendency of two other cases.

The controversy started with the construction of the Cebu School of Midwifery Building owned by petitioner. The bidding for the building construction was awarded by petitioner to respondent CAMSAC represented by its President/General Manager, Architect Catalino M. Salazar. It was stipulated in the contract a retention fee of ten (10%) percent to be deducted by petitioner from all progress payments to the contractor, herein respondent CAMSAC, which shall be released thirty (30) calendar days after inspection and acceptance by petitioner of the project and the submission of a sworn statement by respondent CAMSAC that all obligations, including but not limited to salaries, materials used and taxes due in connection with the construction have been duly paid.

On February 4, 1994, respondent entered into a "Sub-Contract Agreement" with respondent Señoron to undertake the construction of the subject building. A year after, respondent Señoron filed a complaint for "sum of money with application for a writ of preliminary injunction" against the petitioner and respondent CAMSAC anchored on the "Sub-Contract Agreement" he entered with the latter.

Petitioner allegedly received demand-letters from the suppliers-creditors as well as from respondent CAMSAC for the release of the 10% retention fee. On February 22, 1995, it filed before the trial court a complaint for interpleader and damages against respondent CAMSAC, Arc Asia Philippines, Inc., Triple A Marketing Development Corporation, Trinidad Patigayon, Signal Trading Corporation and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc.

The trial court dismissed the complaint for interpleader to prevent multiplicity of suits.

Hence, petitioner filed a petition for review on cetiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent court acted with grave abuse discretion, as it had no jurisdiction, to exercise "due course" authority and to motu propio dismiss petitioner's action for interpleader.

RULING:

Petitioner's direct resort to this Court is erroneous.

Under the Rules of Court, a party may directly appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the trial court only on pure questions of law. The case at bench does not involve pure questions of law as to entitle the petitioner to seek immediate redress from this court. A question of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts as distinguished from question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.

The Court held that Petitioner's claim that the trial court failed to observe the procedure for an interpleader action does not constitute a grave abuse of discretion for the extraordinary writ to issue. It is only an error of judgment correctable by an ordinary appeal. The extraordinary writ does not issue to correct errors of procedure or mistake in the findings and conclusions of the judge.

Accordingly, the petition is denied for lack of merit.