January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 197311 : January 24, 2012]
STRADCOM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO, PETITIONER, VERSUS HON. EDGAR DALMACIO SANTOS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC-QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 222, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY VIRGINIA TORRES AND BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA, REPRESENTING HIMSELF TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF STRADCOM CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
"G.R. No. 197311 - STRADCOM CORPORATION, represented by its President CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO, petitioner, versus HON. EDGAR DALMACIO SANTOS, as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Quezon City, Branch 222, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE represented by ASSISTANT SECRETARY VIRGINIA TORRES and BONIFACIO C. SUMBILLA, representing himself to be the representative of Stradcom Corporation, respondents.cralaw
RESOLUTION
For our resolution is the Motion[1] for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Stradcom Corporation, represented by Cezar T. Quiambao (the Quiambao group), seeking, among others, the setting aside of our Resolution[2] of August 23, 2011.
In our Resolution of August 23, 2011, we held,
The Court has carefully studied the parties' submissions and find that it is clear that what the Republic through the [Office of the Solicitor General] filed before the [Regional Trial Court] is an Interpleader case. However, it is likewise clear that both the Quiambao group and the Sumbilla group lay claim as valid representatives of Stradcom. Necessarily, there is a need to resolve the underlying intra-corporate dispute between the two claimants. As the branch of the RTC to which the case was raffled off is not a designated special commercial court, this Court deems it more appropriate that the interpleader case be raffled off to any of the designated special commercial courts in Quezon City RTC for resolution of the underlying intra-corporate dispute.[3]
Thus, we decreed:
WHEREFORE, Judge Edgar Dalmacio Santos, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222, is hereby DIRECTED to forward with dispatch the entire records of Civil Case No. Q-11-68723 to the Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for re-raffle to a designated Special Commercial Court therein.[4]
Unperturbed, the Quiambao group filed the instant motion for reconsideration submitting, among others, that this Court should have ordered the dismissal of the Interpleader case.
The instant motion for reconsideration lacks merit.
It bears reiterating that what the Republic through the OSG filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is not an intra-corporate case, as contended by the Quiambao group, but an Interpleader case under Rule 62 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Section 1, Rule 62, pertinently provides:
SECTION 1. When interpleader proper. � Whenever conflicting claims upon the same subject matter are or may be made against a person who claims no interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. (Emphasis supplied.)
Both the Quiambao group and the Sumbilla group lay claim as valid representatives of Stradcom. In fact, both groups made separate demands for payment from the Land Transportation Office of one and the same obligation under the Build-Own-Operate Agreement. They both demanded that, the LTO direct the Land Bank of the Philippines to remit the amounts to a designated bank account. Necessarily, there is a conflict of claims in this case. As the Republic, being the payor, is in a quandary as to which group should be recognized as having legal control over Stradcom and therefore, entitled to payment, it was but appropriate and judicious for the Republic to avail of the Interpleader as a remedy under the Rules.[5] And as the action was a special civil action, it was proper for the Republic to file it before the RTC of Quezon City, which had jurisdiction over the action, and to so choose said court in accordance with the rules on venue.
Having passed upon the basic issues, we find no reason to discuss the other arguments raised in the motion. Suffice to say, the Quiambao group's motion for reconsideration simply reiterates the arguments already considered by the Court and the motion raises no new and substantial arguments requiring a reconsideration of the Court's August 23, 2011 Resolution.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Stradcom Corporation, represented by its President Cezar T. Quiambao, is DENIED WITH FINALITY."
Brion, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 875-897.[2] Id. at 848-856.
[3] Id. at 855.
[4] Id.
[5] In Ocampo v. Tirona, G.R. No. 147812, April 6, 2005, 455 SCRA 62, we held, "An action for interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know the person to whom to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on the property. The action of interpleader is a remedy whereby a person who has property whether personal or real, in his possession, or an obligation to render wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both, or claims an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the conflicting claimants, comes to court and asks that the persons who claim the said property or who consider themselves entitled to demand compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate among themselves, in order to determine finally who is entitled to one or the other thing. The remedy is afforded not to protect a person against, a double liability but to protect him against a double vexation in respect of one liability." (Citations omitted) Please also see Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Metro Container Corporation, G.R. No. 127913, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA 150, 155, citing Lim v. Continental Development Corporation, 69 SCRA 349 (1976) and Beltran v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, 29 SCRA 145 (1969).