2005 Bar: Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

2005 Bar: Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V Corporation, X Corporation and Y Corporation to compel them to interplead. He alleged therein that the three corporations claimed title and right of possession over the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he was uncertain which of them was entitled to the goods.After due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the court declaring that X Corporation was entitled to the goods. The decision became final and executory. Raphael filed a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of P100,000.00 for storage charges and other advances for the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. X Corporation alleged that Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances and that for his failure he was barred from interposing his claim. Raphael replied that he could not have claimed storage fees and other advances in his complaint for interpleader because he was not yet certain as to who was liable therefor. Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

The motion to dismiss should be granted.

Under the Rules of Court, a counterclaim or cross-claim that is compulsory, if not set up, is barred. (Sec. 2, Rule 9). The law also abhors the multiplicity of suits (Arreza vs. Diaz). Moreover, if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.

Here, in this case, Raphael should have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and advances since they are in the nature of compulsory claims against defendant corporations. They are part of Raphael‘s cause of action which he may not split. Hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted.