INTERPLEADER:
LUI ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioners, vs. ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION and the PHILIPPINE BANK
OF COMMUNICATIONS, respondents
FACTS:
Lui
Enterprises and Zuellig Pharma Corporation entered into a 10-year contract of
lease over a parcel of land in Davao. Subsequently, Zuellig received a letter
from the Philippine Bank of Communications. Claiming to be the new owner of the
leased property, the bank asked Zuellig to pay rent directly to it. Zuellig
promptly informed Lui Enterprises of the Philippine Bank of Communications’s
claim. Lui Enterprises wrote to Zuellig and insisted on its right to collect
the leased property.
Due
to the conflicting claims of Lui Enterprises and Philippine Bank of
Communications over the rental payments, Zuellig filed a complaint for
interpleader with the RTC in Makati. In its complaint, Zuellig Pharma alleged
that it already consigned in court P604,024.35 as rental payments. Zuellig
Pharma prayed that it be allowed to consign in court its succeeding monthly
rental payments and that Lui Enterprises and the Philippine Bank of
Communications be ordered to litigate their conflicting claims.
Philippine
Bank of Communications filed its answer to the complaint, while Lui Enterprises
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Zuellig’s alleged representative
did not have authority to file the complaint for interpleader on behalf of the
corporation.
According
to Lui Enterprises, an earlier filed nullification of deed of dation in payment
case pending with the RTC of Davao barred the filing of the interpleader case.
Lui Enterprises filed this case against the Philippine Bank of Communications
with respect to several properties it dationed to the bank in payment of its
obligations, one of which being the property leased to Zuellig.
In
the nullification of deed of dation in payment case, Lui Enterprises raised the
issue of which corporation had the better right over the rental payments,
which, as Lui Enterprises argued, was the same issue involved in the
interpleader case.
To
avoid possible conflicting decisions of the Davao trial court and the Makati
trial court on the same issue, Lui Enterprises argued that the subsequently
filed interpleader case be dismissed. Zuellig filed its opposition to the
motion to dismiss, arguing that the same should be dismissed for having been
filed late. Considering that Lui Enterprises filed its motion to dismiss beyond
the 15-day period to file an answer, Zuellig moved that Lui Enterprises be
declared in default.
The
RTC of Makati found that Lui Enterprises failed to file its motion to dismiss
within the reglementary period, and denied its motion to dismiss and declared
it in default.
It
was only one year after the issuance of the order of default that Lui
Enterprises filed a motion to set aside order of default in the RTC of Makati
on the ground of excusable negligence. The RTC of Makati subsequently rendered
a decision holding that Lui Enterprises was barred from any claim in respect of
the rental payments since it was declared in default. Thus, according to the
RTC, there was no issue as to which corporation had the better right over the
rental payments. The trial court awarded the total consigned amount to the Philippine
Bank of Communications. Lui Enterprises appealed to the CA, which found its
appellant’s brief insufficient for non-compliance with Rule 44, Section 13 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The CA dismissed Lui Enterprises’ appeal and
affirmed the decision of the RTC of Makati.
ISSUE:
Whether
the annulment of deed of dation in payment pending in the RTC of Davao barred
the subsequent filing of the interpleader case in the RTC of Makati
RULING:
No.
The nullification of deed
in dation in payment case did not bar the filing of the interpleader case.
Litis pendentia is not present in this case.
Under
Rule 16, Section 1, a motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground of litis
pendentia. The requisites of litis pendentia are:
a.
Identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest in both
actions;
b.
Identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded
on the same facts; and
c.
The identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment that may be
rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the other.
All
of the requisites must be present. Absent one requisite, there is no litis
pendentia.
In
this case, there is no litis pendentia since there is no identity of parties in
the nullification of deed of dation in payment case and the interpleader case.
Zuellig Pharma is not a party to the nullification case filed in the Davao RTC.
There
is also no identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. Lui Enterprises
filed the first case to nullify the deed of dation in payment it executed in
favor of Philippine Bank of Communications. Zuellig subsequently filed the
interpleader case to consign in court the rental payments and extinguish its
obligation to pay rent. The interpleader case was necessary and was not
instituted to harass either Lui Enterprises or the Philippine Bank of
Communications. Thus, the pending nullification case did not bar the filing of
the interpleader case.
No comments:
Post a Comment