1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>Rule 31

Consolidation or Severance

Rule 31
CONSOLIDATION OR SEVERANCE

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. (1)

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?

A: Consolidation is proper:
1) when two or more actions involve the same or a common question of law or fact; and
2) the said actions are pending before the same court. (Section 1, Rule 31; PAL vs. Teodoro, 97 Phil.
461)

First requisite: TWO OR MORE ACTIONS INVOLVE THE SAME OR A

COMMON QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT

Did you notice that phrase – “two or more actions involve the same or a common question of law or fact”?
That phrase seemed to be familiar. ”Common question of law or fact,” where did we meet that
requirement before? That is in joinder of causes of action – two or more causes of action can be joined in
one pleading if they involve a common question of fact or law. Rule 3, Section 6:

SEC. 6 Permissive joinder of parties – All persons in whom or against whom any
right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these rules, join as plaintiffs
or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact
common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action;
but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or
defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest.

The phrase answers the questions:

Q: When may 2 or more parties be joined together in one complaint, either as co-plaintiffs or co-
defendants?
A: There must be a common question of fact or law involved in their causes of action.

Q: When may actions be consolidated?

A: One of the requisites is: when the actions involve a common question of law or fact.

In other words, there must be a connection somewhere between the rule on Consolidation of
actions in Rule 31, with the rule on Permissive Joinder of Parties in Rule 3.

When we were in Rule 3, an EXAMPLE was given: Suppose 30 people were riding on a bus which
met an accident and all the plaintiffs were injured. After the incident, the 30 of them decided to file
claims for damages against the bus company. They hired the same lawyer.

Q: Can the lawyer file 30 complaints for each plaintiffs?

A: YES.

Q: Can the lawyer file only one complaint naming as co-plaintiffs the 30 injured passengers?
46
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>Rule 31
Consolidation or Severance

A: YES, that is permissive joinder of parties which is encouraged to expedite litigation, to avoid
multiplicity of suits, to economize the procedure or avoid repetition of evidence. There are the
justification for permissive joinder of parties in Rule 3 Section 6 but they can only join one complaint if
they have the same lawyer.

Q: But suppose the 30 passengers were injured and after their discharge from the hospital the 30 of
them hired separate lawyers.?
A: There can be no joinder of parties. You cannot join the parties in one complaint because each
plaintiff is represented by a different lawyer.

In this case, there should be 30 complaints filed let’s say, in the RTC of Davao City, and they are
raffled to different branches or judges. The defendant might feel that he would rather have the 30 cases
tried together. Defendant says, “This is difficult. Imagine 30 cases sa 30 salas? Iba-ibang courts. My
witnesses would have to testify 30 times because there are 30 separate complaints.”

Q: Can the 30 cases be joined together para isang judge na lang?

A: YES. The lawyer for the bus company can file a motion under Rule 31, Section 1 to consolidate
the actions. Meaning, the 30 cases should be raffled and assigned to only one judge, there being a
common question of law or fact. This is to economize the procedure if the evidence will be presented
only once. Thus, every time when the case is called, the 30 cases would be tried together. Para ka na
ring nag-permissive joinder of parties.

The purpose of consolidation is to achieve the same effect of permissive joinder of parties under
Rule 3, Section 6. You end in having only one case, kaya lang 30 complaints are to be tried together.
That is why there is a connection between consolidation and permissive joinder of parties.

Second Requisite: THE SAID ACTIONS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE SAME COURT

Q: In the example above, suppose one passenger filed his case in Davao City, another passenger
filed his case in Tagum because he resides there, and another files his case in Mati, can there be
consolidation of their cases?
A: NONE. You cannot consolidate because they are pending in different courts in different
provinces. The law says it must be in the same court.

Take note that cases are consolidated because it will expedite their termination, thereby
economizing on the procedure. Cases are consolidated not only when the cases are before the trial
court. There are many times when cases are consolidated or joined together even when they are
already on appeal, provided, there is a common question of law or fact.

If we look at the SCRA, sometimes the decision involves 2 or 3 cases. The caption sometimes has 3
or more cases, but there’s only 1 decision. And these cases are coming from different parts of the
country. Why are these cases joined before the SC? Because there is a common question of fact or law
or legal issue. So, even in the SC, cases are consolidated and decided together for the first time. Ang
tawag dyan is COMPANION CASES because the same issues are being raised in the petitions.

CONSOLIDATION under RULE 31 vs. CONSOLIDATION OF

CRIMINAL ACTIONS under RULE 119

Now, there is also a provision in the rules on Criminal Procedure on consolidation of criminal
actions under Rule 119, Section 14:

SEC. 14. Consolidation of trials of related offenses. - Charges for

offenses founded on the same facts, or forming part of a series of offenses of
similar character may be tried jointly at the court's discretion. (Rule 119)

Q: Distinguish Consolidation of civil actions from Consolidation of criminal actions.

A: The following are the distinctions:
47
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>Rule 31
Consolidation or Severance

1) In civil cases, one or more causes of action may be embodied in one complaint
because when there is permissive joinder, there is automatic consolidation also;
whereas
In criminal cases, only one offense can be the subject of one complaint or information.
consolidation of criminal actions is exclusively for joint trial;

Q: Can you file one complaint or information embodying two or more crimes?
A: NO. You 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 but it is only for the purpose of
joint trial.

2) In civil cases, the opposite of consolidation is severance under Section 2; whereas

In criminal cases, the opposite of consolidation is separate trial. In reality, there is actually no
consolidation of criminal cases. There is only joint trial of criminal cases.

Under the rules on Criminal Procedure the accused may reserve the right to file the civil action
separately when the criminal action is filed, the civil action is deemed instituted unless the offended
party will make a reservation to file it separately. Or, when the civil action was instituted ahead, the
subsequent filing of the criminal case will mean there is no more civil action there. And Section 2 of
Rule 111, suppose the offended party made a reservation to institute a civil action and a criminal case is
filed, he cannot file the civil action – that’s the rule. He must wait for the outcome of the criminal case.
The criminal case enjoys priority.

Q: What happens if na-una na-file yung civil action?

A: According to Section 2, Rule 111 from the moment the criminal case is filed, the trial of the civil
case is suspended to wait for the outcome of the criminal case.

Q: Is this prejudicial to the offended party? What is the remedy of the offended party?
A: There is a way out according to Section 2, Rule 111. The first thing for him to do is to file a
petition to consolidate the trial of the criminal and civil case for them to be tried together and the
evidence already presented in the civil case is deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal case.
This is what you call the consolidation of the civil and criminal action under Section 2, Rule 111:

“…Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits rendered in the civil action,

the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the
criminal action in the court trying the criminal action…” (Section 2, Rule 111)

Q: Is this consolidation mandatory?

A: NO. It is permissive. Actually, the offended party is the one to initiate this because if not, then he
has to wait for the criminal case to be terminated before he can file the civil case.

Q: Can you move to consolidate in one court the criminal and the civil case when actually the
degree of proof required in one case is different from the degree of proof required in another case?
A: That was answered in the affirmative in the case of

CAÑOS vs. PERALTA

115 SCRA 843

FACTS: This case originated in Digos, Davao del Sur, involving the late Dr. Rodolfo
Caños, who owned the Caños Hospital there. The respondent here was former CFI Judge
Elvino Peralta. There was an incident which led to the filing of a criminal case by A against
B. A reserved the right to file a separate civil action under the rules on criminal procedure.
A filed a separate civil case, but arising out of the same incident. Both of the cases were
assigned to Judge Peralta.
When Judge Peralta noticed that the 2 actions arose out of the same incident – and the
accused in the criminal case is also the defendant in the civil case, and the offended party in

48
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
2001 Edition <draft copy. pls. check for errors>Rule 31
Consolidation or Severance

the criminal case is the plaintiff in the civil case, he ordered the consolidation of the 2 cases
under Rule 31, Section 1, to be tried together.
Dr. Caños objected to the consolidation because according to his lawyer, consolidation of
cases under Rule 31, Section 1 applies only when there are 2 or more civil cases to be
considered.

ISSUE #1: Was the consolidation proper?

HELD: The order of consolidation is correct. Rule 31, Section 1 allows the consolidation
of a criminal and civil case because of the fact that there is a common question of fact or law
between them and that they are pending before the same court. As a matter of fact, before
the same judge.

ISSUE #2: How do you reconcile these cases because the degree of proof in the criminal
case is not the same in the civil case?
HELD: The consolidation was proper under Rule 31 because there is a common question
of fact and law. They can be consolidated but for purposes of decision, the court will now
apply two (2) different criteria: Proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal case and
preponderance of evidence in the civil case. So there is no incompatibility.

SEC. 2. Separate trials. - The court, in furtherance of convenience or to

avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim,
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of any
number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints or
issues. (2a)

Section 2 is the exact opposite of Section 1. In Section 1, there are 2 or more cases which shall be
joined together for joint trial. In section 2, there is one case with several claims, i.e. counterclaims,
cross-claims and third-party complaints. The rule states that they should be tried together, one after the
other, and then one decision.

So for example, you ask the judge for a separate schedule for your 3rd-party claim. Then there will
be a separate schedule for the 3rd–party complaint rather than following the order of trial under Rule
30. Under the order of trial, I have to wait for my turn to prove my 3rd-party claim. If we follow Rule
30 (order of trial) before it reaches the 3rd-party complaint, matagal masyado.

But under Section 2, the court may grant a separate trial for your 3rd-party claim or permissive
counterclaim especially when there is no connection between my permissive counterclaim with the
main action.

<

49
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law