CRIM PRO

Title GR No. 73836

Naguiat v. IAC Date: August 18, 1988
Ponente: Padilla, J.
Antolin T. Naguiat, Petitioner Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court, Third Special Cases Division, Timog
Silangan Development Corporation Ration and Manuel P. Lazatin, Respondents
DOCTRINE: Civil actions not arising from ex delicto may still be consolidated with criminal actions, in accordance with
Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. They may be tried together when they arise from the same act, event or
transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that
the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue
advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.
FACTS
Naguiat bought 4 lots from Timog Silangan Development Corporation. He paid in installments, and after paying
P60.00 per sq. meter for the total area of the lands, he seeks the transfer of ownership by TSDC. TSDC alleges that
the real agreement was for Naguiat to pay P60.00, considering a rebate of P10.00 (for a supposed total of P.70.00 per
sq. meter), with the condition that Naguiat be able to build houses on the 4 lots within 6 months. Since he failed to do
so, TSDC alleges he is liable to pay the P10.00 difference for each sq. meter. Naguiat filed a criminal case against
Lazatin for violation of PD957, for failure to deliver the lots upon full payment made by him. In addition, he filed a case
for specific performances and damages to compel TSDC and Lazatin to deliver the lands to him.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not consolidation of the two cases is proper in this case. - YES
RATIO
Petitioner invokes Rule 111, Sec. 3(a), Rules of Court, which provides:
"Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the civil
action to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense, as contemplated in the first paragraph of Section 1
hereof, the following rules shall be observed:
(a) 'After a criminal action has been commenced, the pending civil action arising from the same offense shall be
suspended, in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered.
However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the same may be consolidated
with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the criminal action. If the application is granted, the
evidence presented and admitted in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action,
without prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that any party may wish to present.

This rule governs where the action is one for recovery of civil liability liablitiy that arises out of the criminal act, or ex
delicto. In this case, his civil action is for specific performance and damages (for TSDC to deliver the titles of the
lands) which arises out of their contract to sell (ex contractu). However, as held in Canos v. Peralta, the consolidation
of a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex delicto, may still be done, based upon the express authority of
Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
"Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court,
it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs
or delay."

A Court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or
transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that
the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue
advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.

The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and abuse, to
prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment of justice with
the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants.

In this case, the issues are alike, and they depend substantially on the same evidence.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent appellate court, dated 9 October 1985, is
SET ASIDE. The Orders of the trial court, in Civil Case No. 4224 and Criminal Case No. 6727, dated 20 March 1985
and 29 May 1985 are REINSTATED.
2S 2016-2017 (BARAMBANGAN)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_73836_1988.html