1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls.

check for errors>

Rule 31 CONSOLIDATION OR S ! RANC

Rule 31 Consolidation or Severance

S CTION 1. Consolidation. " #he$ act%o$s %$&ol&%$' a co((o$ )uest%o$ of la* or fact are pe$d%$' +efore the court, %t (ay order a -o%$t hear%$' or tr%al of a$y or all the (atters %$ %ssue %$ the act%o$s. %t (ay order all the act%o$s co$sol%dated. a$d %t (ay (ake such orders co$cer$%$' proceed%$'s there%$ as (ay te$d to a&o%d u$$ecessary costs or delay. /10 To consolidate cases is to join 2 or more cases together as distinguished from separate trial where the different claims are tried separately. So, separate trials pag-hiwa-hiwalayin. Consolidation pagsasama-samahin. Q: When is consolidation of actions proper !: "onsolidation is proper: #.$ when two or more actions in%ol%e the same or a common &uestion of law or fact' and 2.$ the said actions are pending (efore the same court. )Section #, *ule +#' ,!- %s. Teodoro, ./ ,hil. 01#$ First requisite: TWO OR MORE ACTIONS INVOLVE THE SAME OR A COMMON !ESTION OF LAW OR FACT 2id you notice that phrase "t#o or $ore a%tions in&ol&e t'e sa$e or a %o$$on question o( la# or (a%t) That phrase seemed to (e familiar. )Co$$on question o( la# or (a%t*) where did we meet that re&uirement (efore That is in joinder of causes of action two or more causes of action can (e joined in one pleading if they in%ol%e a common &uestion of fact or law. *ule +, Section 1: S C. 1 +er$issi&e ,oinder o( parties 2 All perso$s %$ *ho( or a'a%$st *ho( a$y r%'ht to rel%ef %$ respect to or ar%s%$' out of the sa(e tra$sact%o$ or ser%es of tra$sact%o$s %s alle'ed to e3%st, *hether -o%$tly, se&erally, or %$ the alter$at%&e, (ay, e3cept as other*%se pro&%ded %$ these rules, -o%$ as pla%$t%ffs or +e -o%$ed as defe$da$ts %$ o$e co(pla%$t, *here a$y )uest%o$ of la* or fact co((o$ to all such pla%$t%ffs or to all such defe$da$ts (ay ar%se %$ the act%o$. +ut the court (ay (ake such orders as (ay +e -ust to pre&e$t a$y pla%$t%ff or defe$da$t fro( +e%$' e(+arrassed or put to e3pe$se %$ co$$ect%o$ *%th a$y proceed%$'s %$ *h%ch he (ay ha&e $o %$terest. The phrase answers the &uestions: Q: When may 2 or more parties (e joined together in one complaint, either as co-plaintiffs or codefendants !: There must (e a common &uestion of fact or law in%ol%ed in their causes of action. Q: When may actions (e consolidated !: 3ne of the re&uisites is: when the actions in%ol%e a common &uestion of law or fact. 4n other words, there must (e a connection somewhere (etween the rule on "onsolidation of actions in *ule +#, with the rule on ,ermissi%e 5oinder of ,arties in *ule +.

46

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 31 Consolidation or Severance

When we were in *ule +, an E-AM+LE was gi%en: Suppose +6 people were riding on a (us which met an accident and all the plaintiffs were injured. !fter the incident, the +6 of them decided to file claims for damages against the (us company. They hired the same lawyer. Q: "an the lawyer file +6 complaints for each plaintiffs !: 78S. Q: "an the lawyer file only one complaint naming as co-plaintiffs the +6 injured passengers !: 78S, that is permissi%e joinder of parties which is encouraged to e9pedite litigation, to a%oid multiplicity of suits, to economi:e the procedure or a%oid repetition of e%idence. There are the justification for permissi%e joinder of parties in *ule + Section 1 (ut they can only join one complaint if they ha%e the same lawyer. Q: ;ut suppose the +6 passengers were injured and after their discharge from the hospital the +6 of them hired separate lawyers. !: There can (e no joinder of parties. 7ou cannot join the parties in one complaint (ecause each plaintiff is represented (y a different lawyer. 4n this case, there should (e +6 complaints filed let<s say, in the *T" of 2a%ao "ity, and they are raffled to different (ranches or judges. The defendant might feel that he would rather ha%e the +6 cases tried together. 2efendant says, "T'is is di((i%ult. I$a.ine /0 %ases sa /0 salas1 I2a3i2an. %ourts. M4 #itnesses #ould 'a&e to testi(4 /0 ti$es 2e%ause t'ere are /0 separate %o$plaints.) Q: "an the +6 cases (e joined together para isang judge na lang !: 78S. The lawyer for the (us company can file a motion under *ule +#, Section # to consolidate the actions. =eaning, the +6 cases should (e raffled and assigned to only one judge, there (eing a common &uestion of law or fact. This is to economi:e the procedure if the e%idence will (e presented only once. Thus, e%ery time when the case is called, the +6 cases would (e tried together. ,ara >a na ring nag-permissi%e joinder of parties. The purpose of consolidation is to achie%e the same effect of permissi%e joinder of parties under *ule +, Section 1. 7ou end in ha%ing only one case, >aya lang +6 complaints are to (e tried together. That is why there is a connection (etween consolidation and permissi%e joinder of parties. Se%ond Requisite: THE SAI5 ACTIONS ARE +EN5IN6 7EFORE THE SAME CO!RT Q: 4n the e9ample a(o%e, suppose one passenger filed his case in 2a%ao "ity, another passenger filed his case in Tagum (ecause he resides there, and another files his case in =ati, can there (e consolidation of their cases !: ?3?8. 7ou cannot consolidate (ecause they are pending in different courts in different pro%inces. The law says it must (e in the same court. Ta>e note that cases are consolidated (ecause it will e9pedite their termination, there(y economi:ing on the procedure. "ases are consolidated not only when the cases are (efore the trial court. There are many times when cases are consolidated or joined together e%en when they are already on appeal, pro%ided, there is a common &uestion of law or fact. 4f we loo> at the S"*!, sometimes the decision in%ol%es 2 or + cases. The caption sometimes has + or more cases, (ut there<s only # decision. !nd these cases are coming from different parts of the country. Why are these cases joined (efore the S" ;ecause there is a common &uestion of fact or 47

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 31 Consolidation or Severance

law or legal issue. So, e%en in the S", cases are consolidated and decided together for the first time. !ng tawag dyan is "3=,!?43? "!S8S (ecause the same issues are (eing raised in the petitions. CONSOLI5ATION under R!LE /8 &s. CONSOLI5ATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS under R!LE 889 ?ow, there is also a pro%ision in the rules on "riminal ,rocedure on consolidation of criminal actions under *ule ##., Section #0: S C. 14. Consolidation o( trials o( related o((enses. " Char'es for offe$ses fou$ded o$ the sa(e facts, or for(%$' part of a ser%es of offe$ses of s%(%lar character (ay +e tr%ed -o%$tly at the court5s d%scret%o$. /Rule 1160 Q: 2istinguish "onsolidation of ci%il actions from "onsolidation of criminal actions. !: The following are the distinctions: #.$ 4n ci%il cases, one or more causes of action may (e em(odied in one complaint (ecause when there is permissi%e joinder, there is automatic consolidation also' #'ereas 4n criminal cases, only one offense can (e the su(ject of one complaint or information. consolidation of criminal actions is e9clusi%ely for joint trial' Q: "an you file one complaint or information em(odying two or more crimes !: ?3. 7ou cannot. That is what you call duplicitous complaint or information. There is no such thing as joinder of crimes. Therefore, the so-called consolidation of criminal actions is not actually filing one information (ut it is only for the purpose of joint trial. 2.$ 4n ci%il cases, the opposite of consolidation is se%erance under Section 2' #'ereas 4n criminal cases, the opposite of consolidation is separate trial. 4n reality, there is actually no consolidation of criminal cases. There is only joint trial of criminal cases. @nder the rules on "riminal ,rocedure the accused may reser%e the right to file the ci%il action separately when the criminal action is filed, the ci%il action is deemed instituted unless the offended party will ma>e a reser%ation to file it separately. 3r, when the ci%il action was instituted ahead, the su(se&uent filing of the criminal case will mean there is no more ci%il action there. !nd Section 2 of *ule ###, suppose the offended party made a reser%ation to institute a ci%il action and a criminal case is filed, he cannot file the ci%il action that<s the rule. Ae must wait for the outcome of the criminal case. The criminal case enjoys priority. : What happens if na-una na-file yung ci%il action A: !ccording to Section 2, *ule ### from the moment the criminal case is filed, the trial of the ci%il case is suspended to wait for the outcome of the criminal case. : 4s this prejudicial to the offended party What is the remedy of the offended party A: There is a way out according to Section 2, *ule ###. The first thing for him to do is to file a petition to consolidate the trial of the criminal and ci%il case for them to (e tried together and the e%idence already presented in the ci%il case is deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal case. This is what you call the %onsolidation of the ci%il and criminal action under Section 2, *ule ###: 78Ne&ertheless, +efore -ud'(e$t o$ the (er%ts re$dered %$ the c%&%l act%o$, the sa(e (ay, upo$ (ot%o$ of the offe$ded party, +e co$sol%dated *%th the cr%(%$al act%o$ %$ the court try%$' the cr%(%$al act%o$89 /Sect%o$ :, Rule 1110 : 4s this consolidation mandatory 48

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 31 Consolidation or Severance

A: ?3. 4t is permissi%e. !ctually, the offended party is the one to initiate this (ecause if not, then he has to wait for the criminal case to (e terminated (efore he can file the ci%il case. Q: "an you mo%e to consolidate in one court the criminal and the ci%il case when actually the degree of proof re&uired in one case is different from the degree of proof re&uired in another case !: That was answered in the affirmati%e in the case of CA;OS &s. < RALTA 11= SCRA >43 ?ACTS: This case originated in 2igos, 2a%ao del Sur, in%ol%ing the late 2r. *odolfo "aBos, who owned the "aBos Aospital there. The respondent here was former "C4 5udge 8l%ino ,eralta. There was an incident which led to the filing of a criminal case (y ! against ;. ! reser%ed the right to file a separate ci%il action under the rules on criminal procedure. ! filed a separate ci%il case, (ut arising out of the same incident. ;oth of the cases were assigned to 5udge ,eralta. When 5udge ,eralta noticed that the 2 actions arose out of the same incident and the accused in the criminal case is also the defendant in the ci%il case, and the offended party in the criminal case is the plaintiff in the ci%il case, he ordered the consolidation of the 2 cases under *ule +#, Section #, to (e tried together. 2r. "aBos o(jected to the consolidation (ecause according to his lawyer, consolidation of cases under *ule +#, Section # applies only when there are 2 or more ci%il cases to (e considered. ISS@ A1: Was the consolidation proper B LD: The order of consolidation is correct. *ule +#, Section # allows the consolidation of a criminal and ci%il case (ecause of the fact that there is a common &uestion of fact or law (etween them and that they are pending (efore the same court. !s a matter of fact, (efore the same judge. ISS@ A:: Aow do you reconcile these cases (ecause the degree of proof in the criminal case is not the same in the ci%il case B LD: The consolidation was proper under *ule +# (ecause there is a common &uestion of fact and law. They can (e consolidated (ut for purposes of decision, the court will now apply two )2$ different criteria: ,roof (eyond reasona(le dou(t in the criminal case and preponderance of e%idence in the ci%il case. So there is no incompati(ility. S C. :. Separate trials. " The court, %$ furthera$ce of co$&e$%e$ce or to a&o%d pre-ud%ce, (ay order a separate tr%al of a$y cla%(, cross"cla%(, cou$tercla%(, or th%rd"party co(pla%$t, or of a$y separate %ssue or of a$y $u(+er of cla%(s, cross"cla%(s, cou$tercla%(s, th%rd"party co(pla%$ts or %ssues. /:a0 Section 2 is the e9act opposite of Section #. 4n Section #, there are 2 or more cases which shall (e joined together for joint trial. 4n section 2, there is one case with se%eral claims, i.e. counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints. The rule states that they should (e tried together, one after the other, and then one decision. So for e9ample, you as> the judge for a separate schedule for your +rd-party claim. Then there will (e a separate schedule for the +rdparty complaint rather than following the order of trial under *ule +6. @nder the order of trial, 4 ha%e to wait for my turn to pro%e my +rd-party claim. 4f we follow *ule +6 )order of trial$ (efore it reaches the +rd-party complaint, matagal masyado. 49

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>

Rule 31 Consolidation or Severance

;ut under Section 2, the court may grant a separate trial for your +rd-party claim or permissi%e counterclaim especially when there is no connection (etween my permissi%e counterclaim with the main action.

50