ANNOTATION

CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
By
SEVERIANO S. TABIOS
______________
1.Introduction, p. 505
2.The Concept of Consolidation of Cases, p. 506
3.Instances of Consolidation, p. 507
A.Consolidation of Civil Cases, p. 507
B.Consolidation of Criminal Cases, p. 508
C.Consolidation of Criminal and Civil Cases, p. 509
D.Consolidation of Special Proceedings, p. 510
_______________
1. Introduction
Consolidation of cases is allowed under the Revised Rules of Court. Thus, 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.1
Correspondingly, the Supreme Court in the case of Vallacar Transit, Inc. vs. Yap, et.
al.,2 which is the subject of this annotation, declared that the two cases in separate
courts with identity of parties as well as identity of rights asserted should be
consolidated and tried in one court, because the pendency of these two cases in
two
________________
1 Rule 31, Sec, 1, Revised Rules of Court.
2 L-61308, December 29, 1983.
506
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Consolidation of Cases
different courts and the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by them
are factors that will not subserve the orderly administration of justice.
2. The Concept of Consolidation of Cases
Consolidation of cases is a judicial action which a court shall take in accordance with
authority granted by the New Rules of Court when actions involving a common
question of law or fact are pending before the court in order to avoid unnecessary
costs or delay.3 Aside from avoiding unnecessary costs or delay, the consolidation
of two or more actions is also intended to avoid a multiplicity of suits and guard
against oppression or abuse.4
Consolidation of cases is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.5
However, while consolidation of cases involving the same parties and subject
matter is discretionary on the part of the court, the Supreme Court considers joint
hearing of said cases as a matter of duty if they are tried before the same judge, or
even if filed with the different branches of the same court, provided one of such

cases has not been partially tried.6 Thus, where two cases involving the same
parties and subject matter are pending in two different branches of the court, the
Supreme Court ruled that the case which has not yet been partially tried in one
branch can be consolidated with the case that has been partially tried in another
branch in order to achieve the purpose or rationale of a joint hearing authorized by
the New Rules of Court.7
________________
3 Rule 31, Sec. 1, Revised Rules of Court.
4 Salazar vs. Rivera, et. al., 64 Phil. 785.
5 Raymundo, et. al. vs. Felipe, et. al, L-29754, Dec. 24, 1971, 42 SCRA 615, 629;
PAL, et. al. vs. Teodoro, et. al., L-6698, Aug. 30, 1955, 97 Phil. 461.
6 Raymundo, et. al. vs. Felipe, et. al, L-29754, Dec. 24, 1971, 42 SCRA 615, 629;
PAL, et. al. vs. Teodoro, et. al, L-6698, Aug. 30, 1955, 97 Phil. 461.
7 Raymundo, et. al. vs. Felipe, et. al., L-29754, Dec. 24, 1971, 42 SCRA 615, 630.
507
VOL. 126, DECEMBER 29, 1983
507
Consolidation of Cases
While the Supreme Court has allowed the consolidation of cases involving the same
parties, and litigating the same issues over the same subject matter pending in two
different branches of the court, provided the case to be consolidated is not yet
partially tried, the rule appears to be normally applicable to cases pending before
the same judge. In this regard, the Supreme Court has observed that in cases
pending before two different branches, none of the judges involved neither has
control over the case pending before the other court nor may impose upon the
other judge or court the duty to hear and decide jointly the case pending before the
latter the case originally belonging to the former, especially if part of the evidence
in one of the cases has already been taken by one of those judges.8
Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes that the action of a judge in consolidating
a case will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. Thus,
where there is no showing that a joint trial of two cases would prejudice any
substantive right of the complaining party, the decision of the judge to consolidate
the trial of two cases will not be disturbed.9
3. Instances of Consolidation
A. Consolidation of Civil Cases
When two civil cases involving a common question of law or fact are pending before
the court, they could be consolidated if pending before the same branch of the
court.10 Furthermore, even if the two cases are pending in two separate branches
of the court, they could still be consolidated provided one of them has not yet been
partially tried.11 Moreover, in both instances,
_________________
8 Phil. Air Lines, Inc., et. al. vs. Teodoro, et. al., 97 Phil. 461.
9 Caos vs. Peralta, et. al., L-38352, Aug. 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 843, 847,
10 Raymundo, et. al. vs. Felipe, et. al., L-29754, Dec. 24, 1971, 42 SCRA 615, 629;
PAL, et. al. vs. Teodoro, et. al, 97 Phil. 461.
11 Raymundo, et. al. vs. Felipe, et. al, L-29754, Dec. 24, 1971, 42 SCRA 615, 629;
PAL, et. al. vs. Teodoro, et. al., 97 Phil. 461.

508
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Consolidation of Cases
the consolidation is a matter of judicial discretion and mandamus can not compel
the judge to exercise the same when no ministerial duty existed to compel the
transfer.12
When the several cases which may be allowed to be consolidated in accordance
with the provisions of the New Rules of Court could not be consolidated because of
the refusal of the court where the same are pending to effect consolidation, the
party seeking consolidation of the cases may elevate the matter to the Supreme
Court and if the Supreme Court is convinced that the cases could indeed he
consolidated, the Supreme Court would direct the Executive Judge of the lower court
to raffle the cases to one branch.13
B. Consolidation of Criminal Cases
Under the New Rules of Court, charges for offenses founded on the same facts, or
which form or are a part of a series of offenses of the same or similar character
may, in the discretion of the court, be tried jointly.14 In this regard, the Supreme
Court has declared that the object of consolidation is to avoid multiplity of suits,
guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify
the work of the trial court, save unnecessary costs and expense; or in brief,
consolidation seeks to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to the
litigants.15 Furthermore, the Supreme Court also commented that the present
tendency is to permit consolidation whenever possible and irrespective of the
diversity of the issues involved.16
In a petition elevated to the Supreme Court where the petitioner indicted in 22
separate criminal cases distributed among four branches of the lower court
requested for
________________
12 Palanca vs. Querubin, et. al., L-29510-31, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 738. 747; PAL,
et. al. vs. Teodoro, et. al , 97 Phil. 461, 468.
13 Sambajon, et. al. vs. Tutaan, et. al., L-43652. March 24, 1977, 76 SCRA 87, 93.
14 Rule 119, Sec. 15, New Rules of Court.
15 Palanca vs. Querubin, et. al., L-29510-31, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 738, 745.
16 Ibid.
509
VOL. 126, DECEMBER 29, 1983
509
Consolidation of Cases
consolidation of the cases into one branch but was refused, the Supreme Court in
directing that the 11 criminal cases be assigned to one branch of the court after due
raffle declared that the public interests of economy and speed weigh in favor of
trying closely related charges together, especially where no prejudice to defendant
appears.17 As it was defendant himself who sought the consolidation, the Supreme
Court therefore saw no prejudice to defendant in consolidating trial.18
C. Consolida tion of Criminal l and Civil Cases

While the New Rules of Court allows that criminal and civil actions arising from the
same offense may be instituted separately, provided that after the criminal action
has been commenced no civil action arising from the same offense can be instituted
or prosecuted after final judgment has been rendered in the final action,19 in
instances, however, where civil and criminal actions being distinct from each other
were filed independently,20 consolidation of these cases is allowed.21 In this
regard, the Supreme Court has declared that 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.22
_________________
17 Palanca vs. Querubin, et. al.. L-29510-31, Nov. 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 738, 747.
18 Ibid.
19 Rule 111, Sec. 3, New Rules of Court.
20 Gorospe vs. Nolasco, et. al, L-14745, Mar. 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 684.
21 Caos vs. Peralta, et. al, L-38352, Aug, 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 843.
22 Caos vs. Peralta, et. al., L-38352, Aug. 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 843, 846.
510
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Consolidation of Cases
D. Consolidation of Special Proceedings
The policy of the New Rules of Court on consolidation of action applies also to
consolidation of special proceedings. In this regard, the court may, in its discretion,
consolidate proceedings instituted by different persons for the purpose of having
different instruments probated as the last will and testament of the decedent.23
Similarly, separate cases involving a will and a codicil, or of two wills, each claimed
to be the last will and testament of a testator, may be consolidated by the court and
heard together.24
In the consolidation of special proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that a
court may adopt one of three forms of consolidation whenever in its opinion the
proceedings is beneficial to and convenient for the parties. These forms of
consolidation were identified as follows:
1. Recasting of cases already instituted and conducting only one hearing and
rendering only one decision;
2. Consolidating the existing cases and holding only one hearing and rendering only
one decision; and
3. Hearing only the principal case and suspending the hearing on the others until
judgment has been rendered in the principal case.25
o0o
_________________
23 Salazar vs. Rivera, et. al., 64 Phil. 785.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.

[Consolidation of Cases, 126 SCRA 505(1983)]