STEEL CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.

, (now known as BDO

UNIBANK, INC.) G.R. No. 190462
DEG DEUTSCHE INVESTITIONS-UND ENTWICKLUNGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH vs. EQUITABLE PCI
BANK, INC., (now known as BDO UNIBANK, INC.) and STEEL CORPORATION OF THEPHILIPPINES G.R.
No. 190538
November 17, 2010
DOCTRINE: When two or more cases involve the same parties and affect closely related subject matters, they must
be consolidated and jointly tried, in order to serve the best interests of the parties and to settle expeditiously the
issues involved; purpose of this rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression and abuse, prevent
delays, clear congested dockets, and simplify the work of the trial court. In short, consolidation aims to attain justice
with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.
FACTS: The petitioner Steel Corp. suffered from financial and liquidity problems caused by the Asian Financial
Crisis, rendering it unable to settle its obligations to its numerous creditors, one of which is herein respondent BDO
Equitable PCI.
The respondent bank filed a petition to put the petitioner corporation under corporate rehabilitation with prayer for
approval of its rehabilitation plan, whereby the court appointed Atty. Antonio Gabionza as rehabilitation receiver of
the petitioner.
By court order, Atty. Gabionza crafted and submitted a rehabilitation plan for the petitioner. The latter produced its
counter rehabilitation plan with the court. However, the court preferred the plan purported by Atty. Gabionza and
promulgated a decision mandating all the creditors of the petitioner to comply with the approved rehabilitation plan.
The aggrieved, the petitioner filed their petition for review with the CA. The creditors (DEG Deutche Investments,
Investment Philippine Funds & BDO Equitable) who were not agreeable with the approved rehabilitation plan also
sought recourse with the CA through a petition for review.
The CA, despite the similarities in the parties, their respective causes of action and relief sought after, denied the
consolidation of the 4 petitions filed by the parties in the rehabilitation petition. It also decided to reverse the lower
court decision and terminated the rehabilitation proceedings.
The petitioner sought recourse with the SC, arguing that the said petitions for review with the CA must be
consolidated.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in not consolidating the said petitions.
RULING: YES, the CA erred in not consolidating the same. Consolidation of actions is expressly authorized under
Sec. 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court 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.
Likewise, the Internal Rules of the CA adopts the same rule:
When related cases are assigned to different Justices, they may be consolidated and assigned to one Justice at the
instance of a party or the Justice to whom the case is assigned provided that the cases under consideration involves
the same parties and/or related questions of fact and/or law.
It is a time-honored principle that when two or more cases involve the same parties and affect closely related subject
matters, they must be consolidated and jointly tried, in order to serve the best interests of the parties and to settle
expeditiously the issues involved.

The purpose of this rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression and abuse, prevent delays, clear
congested dockets, and simplify the work of the trial court. Further, it results in the avoidance of the possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered by the courts in two or more cases, which would otherwise require a single
judgment.
In the instant case, all four 4 cases involve identical parties and arose from the same decision rendered by the
Rehabilitation Court. As such, it became imperative upon the CA to consolidate the cases. Even though
consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, the CA gravely erred in failing to order the
consolidation of the cases. By refusing to consolidate the cases, the CA, in effect, dispensed a form of piecemeal
judgment that has veritably resulted in the multiplicity of suits.
REMANDED to CA for consolidation.
CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. PHILBANKING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 150731 September 14, 2007
DOCTRINE: A demurrer is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his
adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue; what
should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
relief based on the facts and the law.
FACTS: Petition for review of the decision of the CA which reversed the order of the RTC granting Casents
demurrers to evidence and dismissing the complaint filed by Philbanking.
In 1984, Casent executed promissory notes in favor of Rare Realty. The promissory notes were later assigned to
Philbanking. Despite demands, Casent failed to pay its obligation covered by the promissory notes. Thus,
Philbanking filed a Complaint before RTC Makati. In its answer, Casent alleged affirmative defenses failure to
state cause of action; parties executed dacion en pago which conveyed Casent properties to Philbanking which
intention is to extinguish outstanding accounts with the latter; and estoppel. After trial and offer of evidence, Casent
filed a motion for judgment on demurrer to the evidence, pointing out that Philbanking failed to file a reply to
answer which raised dacion which resulted in Philbanking admitting such allegation. The RTC ruled in favor of
Casent. On appeal, the CA ruled that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only issue to be resolved in a demurrer
is whether the plaintiff has shown any right to relief under the facts presented and the law. Thus, it held that the trial
court erred when it considered the Answer which alleged the Dacion, and that its genuineness and due execution
were not at issue. It added that the court a quo should have resolved whether the two promissory notes were covered
by the Dacion, and that since petitioners demurrer was granted, it had already lost its right to present its evidence.
ISSUE: (1) Should judicial admissions be considered in resolving a demurrer to evidence? If yes, are the judicial
admissions in this case sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the complaint?
(2) Does respondents failure to file a Reply and deny the Dacion and Confirmation Statement under oath constitute
a judicial admission of the genuineness and due execution of these documents?
RULING: (1) YES. Rule 8, Section 8 specifically applies to actions or defenses founded upon a written instrument
and provide the manner of denying it. It is more controlling than Rule 6, Section 10 which merely provides the
effect of failure to file a Reply. Thus, where the defense in the Answer is based on an actionable document, a Reply
specifically denying it under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document will
be deemed admitted. Since respondent failed to deny the genuineness and due execution of the Dacion and
Confirmation Statement under oath, then these are deemed admitted and must be considered by the court in
resolving the demurrer to evidence.
(2) NO. The admission of the genuineness and due execution of the documents in question is not all encompassing
as to include admission of the allegations and defenses pleaded in petitioners Answer. In executing the Dacion, the
intention of the parties was to settle only the loans of petitioner with respondent, not the obligation of petitioner
arising from the promissory notes that were assigned by Rare Realty to respondent. Admission of the genuineness

and due execution of the Dacion and Confirmation Statement does not prevent the introduction of evidence showing
that the Dacion excludes the promissory notes. Petitioner, by way of defense, should have presented evidence to
show that the Dacion includes the promissory notes. All matters which are in the records of the case must be
considered in granting the demurrer.
Petition DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.

CRISTINA DIMAN, CLARISSA DIMAN, GEORGE DIMAN, FELIPE DIMAN and FLORINA DIMAN vs. HON.
FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIAS, BRANCH
255; HEIRS OF VERONICA V. MORENO LACALLE, represented by JOSE MORENO LACALLE
G.R. No. 131466 November 27, 1998
DOCTRINE: A judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded, while a summary judgment is a
judgment on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits, depositions or admissions. Another distinction is that while
the remedy of a judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant (one seeking to recover upon a claim,
counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a declaratory relief, supra), a summary judgment may be applied for by
either a claimant or a defending party.
FACTS:

Miranda v CA
Monzon v Sps Relova
Dacuital v LM Engineering Corp
New York Marine v CA