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:
when two or more actions involve the same or a common question of law or fact; and
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?
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:
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.

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 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.

<

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

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

PAGE

PAGE 49
Lakas Atenista
Ateneo de Davao University College of Law