Per our last discussion on Actions and Venue, I have learned that an

interpleader is what you will file at the Court to determine who among
the several possible recipients or claimants should receive the goods,
amount, payment or property.

In the example presented, it is a joinder of parties due to several

defendants and there are 2 cases being filed one after the other. The
first case is res judicata to the 2nd case and therefore splitting a single
cause of action. The relief from storing the goods should have been
incorporated in the first complaint because in the absence of such would
mean the reliefs available were waived and will effect as splitting a
cause of action due to the 1st case being res judicata.

What should guide us is a determination if there's a right violated, from

the right it does not matter if there are several reliefs presented. It is
frowned upon by law to file separate cases for every relief. If there's
only one right that has been established it shall entitle to one cause of
action and in that one case all possible reliefs should be incorporated
and not a case per relief.

Every case should be founded on one possible right so if there's only one
right of action which proceeds from the warehouse agreement. The right
is flowing and part and parcel of one contract that is keeping the goods
in the warehouse. The Court then held that the claim for storage fees
should have been incorporated in the first case and the fact that it was
not is already a waiver of that particular relief proceeding from one
right of action.

The 2nd case is about partition of property or establishment of a right.

It is not an enforcement of a right or redress of a wrong as with
ordinary civil cases but simply establishing a status, a right or a
particular fact which is called special proceeding found in Rule 1(3).
There is improper joinder of causes of action because one of the 2 causes
of action is governed by a different rule. As presented the case is about
collection of sum of money and partition of property.
Violation of the rules of the joinder of causes of action will simply drop
or sever the misjoined cause of action but violation of a rule against
splitting a single cause of action will result in dismissal because of
forum shopping.

Indispensable and necessary parties were also discussed. The inability

to join a necessary party would not mean the lawsuit would have to be
dismissed, as separate actions could be brought by or against them.
Indispensable parties however are so integral to the lawsuit that the
action cannot proceed without them.

In the civil case for damages against the employer per Rule 3 (7) states
that the court is required to order the plaintiff to join the indispensable
party. We can reconcile it to Rule 3 (11) that neither misjoinder nor
non-joinder of parties is grounds for the dismissal of an action. The
court is not dismissing the case because of failing to join the
indispensable party. The court is dismissing the case because of failing
to obey the order of the court to join the indispensable party per Rule
17(3). For a necessary party, it should not result in the dismissal of the
case. The failure to join the necessary party is with or without
justifiable cause. If it is with justifiable cause, it will simply result in
taking note of the Court and will go on with the proceeding. If the non-
joinder of the necessary party without a justifiable cause shall be
deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.

Further, simply because there are so many parties do not necessarily

mean filing a class suit is authorized. Class suit is only available if it is
of common or general interest and people are so numerous as to make it
impracticable to join them all in one case. If one of the parties dies
while the case is pending, we need to remember that there are actions
that survive and do not. For those that survive, you will have to report
the death of the party and name the heirs so they can be substituted.
For the venue of actions, the determination depends on knowing the
various kinds of actions. There's real, personal, in personam, in rem and
quasi in rem. The different kinds of action have its own special
significance. Whether an action is real or personal is determinative on
rules of venue. Whether an action is in rem, in personam or quasi in
rem is determinative on the rules to observe on summons. Summons is
court informing the defendant of the existence of the case.
Whether the action is real or personal is important to determine the
rule on venue. If the case involves title to or possession of real property,
or interest, title or possession of land it will be filed in the place where
the real property of portion thereof is situated. All other actions that
are not real actions are personal actions. If it is a personal action, the
case will be filed where the plaintiff resides or where defendant resides.
If there are several plaintiffs, it’ll be where the principal plaintiff
resides or if there are several defendants, it’ll be where the principal
defendant resides.

The decision will be at the election of the plaintiff. Very important to

note as well to prevent Sec 1 or 2 that parties must agree beforehand on
the exclusive venue so that when there’s a dispute that will arise it will
only be filed within the place mentioned in the agreement such as with
words like only, solely and exclusively.

Injunction is to prevent or restrain a person from doing something.

There’s prohibitory and mandatory. The rule for cases including
injunction is that the court that will issue the injunction can only be the
court where the defendant can be found because it’s the same court that
will enforce the defendant to do. Specific law prevails over general law.
An action in rem binds the whole world and the way the world is
informed is by publication in general circulation. Jurisdiction is
acquired through publication.

An action in personam is an action that is filed against a specific

defendant where the same should be named. Jurisdiction over the
defendant is secured by serving summons personally or substituted
service. The importance is that the kind of actions not only determines
the rules on venue but also the rules on summons to be followed. Quasi
in rem is when there’s a feature in rem and in personam. There’s a
specific defendant named but can’t be found anymore. If action in
personam and the defendant is not here the case will not proceed since
summons can’t be served.

Now to make it quasi in rem, we ask the Court to issue an attachment

over the properties found in the Philippines to subject interest over the
property and as such the action in personam has been transformed to
an action quasi in rem and jurisdiction can be acquired through
publication. If it is a collection of money over a non-resident defendant,
we have to attach over the property in the Philippines and so summons
can be served through publication being quasi in rem.

Congress- jurisdiction cannot be acquiesce - bc it’s based on law

Jurisdiction cannot be made subject to agreement since jurisdiction is

fixed by law. NO - SEC 2 Art 8 ; Teeham v Bonghanoy (exceptional
case)

Venue = can be agreed upon