Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff

Sec. 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff. — Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall be limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action unless within fifteen (15) days from notice of the motion he manifests his preference to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph shall be without prejudice. A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court.

Notes:

● MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW THE COMPLAINT

● AFTER SERVICE of answer or of a motion for summary judgment to plaintiff

● APPROVAL of court and upon such terms and conditions court deems proper

● WITHOUT PREJUDICE unless otherwise specified

● dismissal limited to the complaint. If defendant filed a COUNTERCLAIM, the dismissal shall not affect the counterclaim

● Remedies of defendant:

(a) prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action

(b) opt to have it resolved in the same action (w/n 15 days from notice of the motion)

● CLASS SUIT: court approval before it can be dismissed or compromised

Q. When may a plaintiff dismiss his action with leave of court?

A. After a responsive pleading have already been served on the plaintiff or after a motion for summary judgment has already been served on the plaintiff. He can no longer dismiss as a matter of right. He can dismiss it only upon application and upon approval by the court of the motion.

But the dismissal under Sec. 2 Rule 17 even if granted by the court, maybe subject to certain conditions that the court may impose.

Q. What is the effect of the dismissal under Sec. 2 Rule 17?

A. It is still a dismissal without prejudice unless the court provides otherwise.

Q. Should a compulsory counterclaim be pleaded in the answer, what would be the effect of the dismissal under Sec. 2 Rule 17 on the counterclaim?

A. The counterclaim is not dismissed.

Q. In what proceeding may it therefore be prosecuted?

A. It may be prosecuted in the same case provided that within 15 days from receipt of motion to dismiss, the plaintiff manifest to the court that he desires that the counterclaim be litigated in the same case, otherwise, the counterclaim maybe litigated in a separate action.

A filed a case against B. B served on A his answer or his motion for summary judgment on January 10, 2012. On January 15, 2012, A files a motion of dismissal without leave of court. 

Q. Can he validly do that?

A. No.

Q. But can he still file it?

A. Yes, but with a proper motion that he be allowed to dismiss. That motion maybe granted by the court. If the court grants it, the court may impose a condition for the dismissal.

Q. Why is it no longer a matter of right on the part of the plaintiff to file a notice of dismissal after he has been served the answer or a motion for summary judgment?

A. Where B has a counterclaim, B has a right to have that counterclaim be litigated and resolved. So, if he (B) objects, the court may grant the motion but subject now to the dismissal of the action.

Q. What would be the effect of a motion of A to dismiss his complaint?

A. If the motion is granted on an Answer with counterclaim, the dismissal of the action is limited to the complaint. The counterclaim is unaffected. B, therefore, can litigate the counterclaim either in the same case or B may file in a separate action to enforce the counterclaim.

Q. When may B prosecute his counterclaim in the same case?

A. If within 15 days from receiving the notice of dismissal, he manifests to the court that he desires that his counterclaim be litigated in the same case, otherwise, the counterclaim must be litigated in a separate action.

Dismissal upon motion by plaintiff (Rule 17, Sec 2)

Once either an answer or motion for summary judgment has been served on the plaintiff, the dismissal is no longer a matter of right and will require the filing of a motion to dismiss, not a mere notice of dismissal. The motion to dismiss will now be subject to the approval of the court which will decide on the motion upon such terms and conditions as are just (Sec. 2, Rule 17). The dismissal under Sec. 2 is no longer a matter of right on the part of the plaintiff but a matter of discretion upon the court.

Effect of dismissal upon existing counterclaim

If a counterclaim has already been pleaded by the defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff‘s motion to dismiss, and the court grants said motion to dismiss, the dismissal ―shall be limited to the complaint‖ (Sec. 2, Rule 17). The phraseology of the provision is clear: the counterclaim is not dismissed, whether it is a compulsory or a permissive counterclaim because the rule makes no distinction. The defendant if he so desires may prosecute his counterclaim either in a separate action or in the same action. Should he choose to have his counterclaim resolved in the same action, he must notify the court of his preference within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the plaintiff‘s motion to dismiss. Should he opt to prosecute his counterclaim in a separate action, the court should render the corresponding order granting and reserving his right to prosecute his claim in a separate complaint.

A similar rule is adopted in Sec. 6, Rule 16 and Sec. 3, Rule 17, wherein the dismissal of the counterclaim does not carry with it the dismissal of the counterclaim. The same provision also grants the defendant a choice in the prosecution of his counterclaim.

read more...

Dismissal Upon Notice by Plaintiff

Sec. 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff. — A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action based on or including the same claim. (Rule 17, Rules of Court)

Notes:

● NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

● BEFORE SERVICE of answer or of a motion for summary judgment

● Ministerial duty of court to issue order CONFIRMING the dismissal

● WITHOUT PREJUDICE, except:

- where notice states otherwise

- where plaintiff has previously dismissed case in court of competent jurisdiction

- where the dismissal is premised on the fact that the defendant has already paid the claim

● TWO-DISMISSAL RULE APPLIES when the plaintiff has:

(a) twice dismissed actions,

(b) based on or including the same claim,

(c) in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Example:

A filed a case against B. B received the summons on December 5, 2011. Under Sec. 1 Rule 11, B has until December 20, 2011 within which to file his answer. 

Q. Could A dismiss the case before B could file his Answer?

A. Yes. A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. 

Q. How can A dismiss the case?

A. By filing a NOTICE OF DISMISSAL.

Q. What is the action that the court must take when a notice of dismissal is filed? Will it order the dismissal of the complaint?

A.  No. All that the court has to do is to confirm the dismissal. But there will be no legal objection if the court issues an order not only confirming the dismissal but also an order of dismissal. 

Q. When does the withdrawal take effect?

A. Upon order of the court confirming the dismissal. The requirement requiring an order confirming the dismiss is in keeping with the respect due the court.

Q. What is the effect of this dismissal of A?

A. It is a dismissal without prejudice except when the notice of dismissal stated that it is with prejudice.

On January 5, 2012, A re-filed the same case. B was summoned on Jan. 15, 2012. On January 20, 2012 and before B could file his Answer, A again dismissed the case by filing a second Notice of Dismissal. 

Q. What is the effect of the second notice of dismissal?

A. It is a dismissal with prejudice.

Q. Supposing in the notice of dismissal filed on Jan. 20, A said it is without prejudice, will the resulting dismissal be also without prejudice?

A. NO, because it is not for the plaintiff to characterize the effect of the dismissal as provided by law.

Q. Why is the dismissal with prejudice now?

A. Because Sec. 1 says, a dismissal produces a dismissal with prejudice if filed by a person who previously filed a notice of dismissal.

This is now a dismissal with prejudice regardless of what A stated in the notice of dismissal.

Q. Supposing the court issued the order saying that the dismissal is without prejudice, is that order valid?

A. No, because the court cannot characterize the effect of the second dismissal. The law provides the effect. It is always a dismissal with prejudice.

March 10, 2012, A filed a case against B. B now files a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. He now says “this third complaint is barred by res judicata. The second dismissal produced by the filing on Jan. 20, 2012 is a dismissal with prejudice.

Q. Is the contention of B correct?

A. Yes. This must be now dismissed because this is barred by the second dismissal.

      

● It is not the order confirming the dismissal which operates to dismiss the complaint. As the name of the order implies, said order merely confirms a dismissal already effected by the filing of the notice of dismissal. The court does not have to approve the dismissal because it has no discretion on the matter. Before an answer or a motion for summary judgment has been served upon the plaintiff, the dismissal by the plaintiff by the filing of the notice is a matter of right. The dismissal occurs as of the date of the notice is filed by the plaintiff and not the date the court issues the order confirming the dismissal.

● Under the clear terms of Sec. 1, Rule 17, the dismissal as a matter of right ceases when an answer or a motion for summary judgment is served on the plaintiff and not when the answer or the motion is filed with the court. Thus, if a notice of dismissal is filed by the plaintiff even after an answer has been filed in court but before the responsive pleading has been served on the plaintiff, the notice of dismissal is still a matter of right.

● The second notice of dismissal will bar the refiling of the action because it will operate as an adjudication of the claim upon the merits. In other words, the claim may only be filed twice, the first being the claim embodied in the original complaint. Since as a rule, the dismissal is without prejudice, the same claim may be filed. If the refilled claim or complaint is dismissed again through a second notice of dismissal, that second notice triggers the application of the two-dismissal rule and the dismissal is to be deemed one with prejudice because it is considered as an adjudication upon the merits.

read more...

Quo Warranto

What is a quo warranto?

1) Quo warranto is a demand made by the state upon some individual or corporation to show by what right they exercise some franchise or privilege appertaining to the state which, according to the Constitution and laws they cannot legally exercise by virtue of a grant and authority from the State (44 Am. Jur. 88-89).

▪ A proceeding or writ issued by the court to determine the right to use an office, position or franchise and to oust the person holding or exercising such office, position or franchise if his right is unfounded or if a person performed acts considered as grounds for forfeiture of said exercise of position, office or franchise. Quo warranto may also be used when an association acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

▪ A quo warranto is a prerogative writ by which the Government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise. (3 Moran 208 )

2)  It is a special civil action commenced by a verified petition against (a) a person who usurps a public office, position or franchise; (b) a public officer who performs an act constituting forfeiture of a public office; or (c) an association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to do so (Rule 66, Sec. 1).

Who may file a case for quo warranto?

1. The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof, must commence such action. (Rule 66, Sec 2) (MANDATORY QUO WARRANTO) 

2. The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court in which the action is to be commenced, bring such an action at the request and upon the relation of another person. (Rule 66, Sec 3) (DISCRETIONARY QUO WARRANTO) 

3. A person claiming to be entitled to a public office usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may also bring an action for QW in his own name. (Rule 66, Sec 5)

When government commence an action against individuals

(QW in the name of the Philippines)

1) Quo warranto is commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by the Solicitor General, or in some instances, by a public prosecutor (Rule 66, Secs. 2 and 3). When the action is commenced by the Solicitor General, the petition may be brought in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (Sec. 7). 

2) An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines thru the Solicitor General against:

(a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;

(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office;

(c) An association which acts a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act (Sec. 1).

When individual may commence an action for quo warranto

(QW in the name of a private individual)

The petition for quo warranto may be commenced by a private person in his own name where he claims to be entitled to the public office or position alleged to have been usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another (Rule 66, Sec. 5). 

Accordingly, the private person may maintain the action without the intervention of the Solicitor General and without need for any leave of court (Navarro vs. Gimenez, 10 Phil. 226; Cui vs. Cui, 60 Phil. 37). In bringing a petition for quo warranto, he must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly being held by another (Cuevas vs. Bacal, 347 SCRA 338). It is not enough that he merely asserts the right to be appointed to the office. 

Sol-Gen vs. Private Individual

Private individual – In petitions for quo warranto filed by a private individual, it is necessary for him to prove his right to the office. If he fails to prove, it is unnecessary for the court to pass on the right of defendant in office.

Solicitor-General – But when instituted by the Sol-Gen or the public prosecutor, it is not necessary that there be a person claiming to be entitled to the office alleged to have been usurped. The duty of the court is to pass upon the right of the defendant to the office. (Acosta vs. Flor, 5 Phil 18, 1905)

When to file

Action must be commenced within 1 year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose. 

● The periods within which the quo warranto action should be brought are conditions precedent to the existence of a cause of action. The action cannot prosper beyond said periods even if such a defense was not raised by the defendant in the lower court (Abeto vs. Rodas, 82 Phil 59).

● The one-year period, however, is not interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy as, in quo warranto proceedings, no one is compelled to resort to administrative remedies since public interest requires the right to public office should be determined as speedily as possible. (Galano vs. Roxas, L-31241, Sept. 12, 1975)

Where to file (venue)

1. Supreme Court

2. Court of Appeals

3. RTC where the respondent or any of the respondent resides

4. RTC, CA, SC (concurrent jurisdiction) - when Solicitor-General commences the action

5. Sandiganbayan (under R.A. 8249) - petition for quo warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or that may be filed under EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A

6. Municipal Trial Court (ONLY INSTANCE) - petition for quo warranto for the disqualification of an elected barangay official 

What is the nature or tenor of the judgment

When the respondent is found guilty of usurping into, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or relator, as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires. (Rule 66, Sec. 9)

What are the rights of persons adjudged entitled to office?

If judgment be rendered in favor of the person averred in the complaint to be entitled to the public office, he may, after taking the oath of office and executing any official bond required by law:

1. Take upon himself the execution of the office;

2. May immediately thereafter demand all the books and papers in the respondent’s custody or control appertaining to the office to which the judgment relates; and

▪ If respondent refuses, he may be punished for indirect contempt. 

3. May bring an action against the respondent to recover damages sustained by such persons by reason of usurpation. (Rule 66, Sec. 10)

▪ The action for damages should be commenced within 1 year after the entry of the judgment establishing petitioner’s right to the office in question.  (Rule 66, Sec. 11)

Limitations:

1. Quo Warranto - file within 1 year from the date of usurpation

2. Damages - file within 1 year from entry of judgment (Rule 66, Sec. 11)

If there is a dispute between and among the Board of Directors of a private corporation, one group claiming that they have been usurped, is the proper remedy quo warranto?

No.  This is an intra-corporate dispute to be filed in the regular courts (RTC) having original jurisdiction

Peculiarities of Proceedings

1.  When the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor commences the action at the instance of another person, leave of court must first be secured.

2. The motion for leave must be set for hearing with notice to the respondent so that he may be heard.

3. The court issues the order allowing the filing of the action within the period fixed therein.

Quo Warranto as distinguished from Election Contest

ELECTION PROTEST	QUO WARRANTO
Proper remedy if the dispute is as to the counting of votes or on matters connected with the conduct of the election.   An election contest challenges the right of a person to hold office on the ground of IRREGULARITIES in the conduct of the elections for said office.	Proper action when the dispute is on the INELIGIBILITY of a person sought to be ousted
In election contests, the successful protestant will ASSUME the office if he had obtained plurality of the valid votes	If the quo warranto proceeding succeeds, the respondent will be ousted but the petitioner will NOT ASSUME the office

Distinctions between Quo Warranto in elective and appointive offices

QW (ELECTIVE OFFICE)	QW (APPOINTIVE OFFICE)
The issue is the eligibility of the respondent	The issue is the validity of the appointment
The occupant who was declared ineligible or disloyal will be unseated but the petitioner will not be declared the rightful occupant of the office.	The court will oust the person illegally appointed and will order the seating of the person who was legally appointed and entitled to the office.

Quo warranto vs. Mandamus

QUO WARRANTO	MANDAMUS
Remedy to try disputes with respect to the title to a public office. The right to the office itself is disputed.	The remedy to oust the usurper where there is no dispute as to who has the title to the public office but the adverse party, without lawful ground, prevents the rightful occupant from assuming the office (Lota vs CA, L-14803, June 30, 1961)

Quo Warranto (Election Code) vs. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

Quo Warranto (Election Code)	Quo Warranto (Rule 66)
To contest the right of an electoral   public officer to hold public office.	Prerogative writ by w/c the govt. can call upon any person to show by what title he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise
An electoral proceeding under the Omnibus Elections Code for the exclusive purpose of impugning the election of a public officer on the ground of ineligibility or disqualification to hold the office	Three grounds: usurpation, forfeiture, or illegal association
Petition must be filed within 10 days from the proclamation of the candidate	Presupposes that the respondent is   already actually holding office and action must be commenced within one year from cause of ouster or right of petitioner to hold office arose
May be filed by any registered candidate for the same office and, who, even if the petition prospers, would not be entitled for that office.	The petitioner must be the government or the person entitled to the office and who would assume the same if his action succeeds.

read more...

Interpleader

Interpleader

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. (Ocampo vs. Tirona, G.R. No.147812. April 6, 2005)

Purpose of the remedy

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. (Ocampo vs. Tirona, ibid.)

Requisites for interpleader

1) There must be two or more claimants with adverse or conflicting interests to a property in the custody or possession of the plaintiff;

2) The plaintiff in an action for interpleader has no claim upon the subject matter of the adverse claims or if he has an interest at all, such interest is not disputed by the claimants;

3) The subject matter of the adverse claims must be one and the same; and

4) The parties impleaded must make effective claims.

Interpleader vs. Intervention
 

INTERPLEADER	INTERVENTION
1. an original action	1. ancillary action
2. presupposes that plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the action or has interest therein in whole or in part which is not disputed by the other parties	2. proper in any of the four situations: persons having (a) legal interest in the matter of litigation, or (b) success of either of the parties, or (c) an interest against both, or (d) is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an offer thereof, (Rule 19, Sec. 1)
3. defendants are being sued precisely to interplead them	3. defendants are original parties to the pending suits

Procedural Peculiarities

1. Upon the filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another.

2. If the interest of justice so requires, the court may direct in the same order that the subject matter of the suit be paid or delivered to the court.

3. The summons shall be served on the conflicting claimants together with a copy of the complaint and order mentioned in no. 1. (Serve: summons, complaint, order)

4. The defendants may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of:

a) the impropriety of the interpleader action or on 

b) other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16.

5. The defendants shall serve a copy of the answer not only to the plaintiff but also to the other conflicting claimants who may file their reply thereto.

6. If any claimant fails to plead within the prescribed period, the court may, on motion, declare him in default and thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect to the subject matter.

When to file to file an interpleader?

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. (Rule 62, Sec. 1)

Example:

A leased an apartment to B. So, pursuant to this agreement, B have been occupying this apartment paying the rentals.  After the lease period has run, let’s say, six (6) months, here now surfaces C. C said, “B does not pay anymore the rentals to A, this apartment is mine. Pay to me.” B is in a dilemma. If he (B) pays to A and it turns out later that C has a better right, he runs the risk of paying twice. If he pays to C, he runs the risks of paying again to A because C may not have the right.

Q. If you were B, what is the remedy available to you, so that regardless of who is the party  entitled to receive, you will be protected?

A. File a suit for interpleader. B vs. A and C. Why? So that A and C can fight it out in this case. So, B initiates the complaint against two (2) people who do not want to go to court and litigate.

               

So, this process of interpleader, A and C are compelled to fight each other. That is the concept of interpleader.

We now have this complaint by B against A and C.

Q. What is the prayer of B here?

A. That A and C be directed to interplead with each other. Meaning, that A and C should fight it out and have this matter of who is entitled to the rental. Actually, it is not B who is fighting A or C. It is A and C who are fighting each other.

Q. But who initiated the fight between the two (2)?

A. B.

Q.  What now is the procedure to be followed by the court when this interpleader action was filed? 

A. A and C will also be summoned under Rule 14. But with this difference: accompanying the summons is an order of the court.

Rule 62, Sec. 2

Upon filing of the complaint, the court shall issue an order requiring the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another. If the interests of justice so require, the court may direct in such order that the subject matter be paid or delivered to the court. 

So, the sheriff now serves on A and C the summons. Together with the summon is that order of the court directing A and C to interplead with one other. So, A will file his answer.

Q. Who will be furnished copy of the answer of A?

A. A will furnish B and C.

Q. C will file his answer. Who will be furnished with the copy of the answer of C?

A. A and B.

Q. Do you now see why this is a special civil action?

A. In ordinary civil action, do the defendants furnish each other copies of their answers? No except when the answer contains a cross-claim. But here, the defendants furnish each other. Why? Because they are the ones litigfating.

So, insofar as A is concerned, the plaintiff against him is C. Insofar as C is concerned, A is the plaintiff against him.

Q. May a motion to dismiss the action for interpleader be filed by A and C? Can A and C avail of Rule 16, before they file their answer?

A. Yes

Section 4 Rule 62

Within the time of filing an answer, each claimant may file a motion to dismiss on the ground of impropriety of the interpleader or on other appropriate grounds specified in Rule 16. The period to file the answer shall be tolled and if the motion is denied, the movant may file his answer within the remaining period, but shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from   notice of denial.

Q. What do you notice with respect to the ground of a motion to dismiss an interpleader action and a motion to dismiss in an ordinary civil action?

A. In an ordinary civil action, the impropriety of the action is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Under Rule 62, it is. So, the grounds for a motion to dismiss under Rule 62 are more encompassing than the ground of a motion to dismiss under Rule 16.

Sec. 5 Rule 62 covers that situation already mentioned earlier.

Sec. 5 Rule 62

Each claimant shall file his answer setting forth his claim within fifteen (15) days from service of the summons upon him, serving a copy thereof upon each other conflicting claimants who may file their reply thereto as provided by these Rules. If any claimant fails to plead within the time herein fixed, the court may, on motion, declare him in default and thereafter render judgment barring him from any claim in respect to the subject matter.

After A and C have been summoned, they will file their answer serving the plaintiff B and other defendants of the copy of the answer. In the answer of A and C, each will assert his right to the rental in this example. He will give his reasons why the rental should be paid to him.

Q. May A and C also file a counterclaim, a cross-claim?

A. Yes. 

Sec. 5 Rule 62

The parties in an interpleader action may file counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party complaints and responsive pleadings thereto, as provided by these Rules.

So, there is nothing special about this, except with this provision where they have to furnish each other with copies of their pleadings.

Q.  What now is the disposition of the court with respect to these cases?

A. After the pleadings of the conflicting claimants have been filed and pre-trial have been conducted in accordance with the rules, the court shall proceed to determine their respective rights and adjudicate their counterclaims.

   

            

Sec. 6 Rule 62

After the pleadings of the conflicting claimants have been filed, and pre-trial has been conducted in accordance with the Rules, the court shall proceed to determine their respective rights and adjudicate their several claims.

It means to say following the pre-trial, trial proper will now proceed. 

After the court has conducted the pre-trial and received the evidence, the court will now determine who between A and C is entitled to this rental. And of course, will adjudicate the counterclaims.

 

    

Sec. 7 Rule 62

The docket and other lawful fees paid by the party who filed a complaint under this Rule, as well as the costs and litigation expenses, shall constitute a lien or change upon the subject matter of the action, unless the court shall order otherwise. 

Cases:

Menzi & Co. vs. Bastida, 63 Phil 16 – The costs, expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by the plaintiff in the action is recoverable from the defendant who loses in the action and is found by the court to have caused the unnecessary litigation.

Beltran vs. PHHC, L-25138, August 28, 1969 - Action for interpleader is improper where defendants have conflicting claims against the plaintiff.

Vda. De Camilo vs. Aranio, L-15653, September 29, 1961 - Where there are no conflicting claims among the defendants, their respective claims being spearte and distinct from each other, the complaint for interpleader may be dismissed for lack of cause of action.

Wack-Wack Golf & Country Club vs. Lee Won, L-23851, March 26, 1976 - An action for interpleader must be filed within a reasonable time after the dispute has arisen, otherwise it may be barred by laches. Where a party was aware of the dispute and in fact had been sued by one of the claimants and the former did not implead the other claimant, he can no longer invoke the remedy of interpleader.

read more...