Naguiat v. Intermediate Appellate Court
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Antolin T. Naguiat (petitioner) purchased four lots from Timog Silangan Development Corporation (TSDC), represented by its President Manuel P. Lazatin (private respondents). Petitioner made a down payment and subsequent substantial payments, allegedly amounting to full payment for Lot No. 16 and three other lots (Lots Nos. 13, 14, and 15). TSDC issued a title for Lot No. 16 but refused to issue titles for the other three lots, claiming petitioner had not fully paid. Private respondents contended that the sale was subject to conditions, including commencement and completion of house construction within specific periods, which petitioner allegedly failed to meet. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a civil complaint for specific performance with damages (Civil Case No. 4224) seeking delivery of titles and damages. Prior to this, petitioner also filed a criminal complaint against Lazatin for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 (Section 25). An information was filed, docketed as Criminal Case No. 6727. The trial court granted petitioner's motion to consolidate both cases. The trial court also allowed petitioner's counsel to appear as private prosecutor in the criminal case. Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which set aside the trial court's orders, directing the suspension of the civil action and disallowing the private prosecutor's intervention. Petitioner sought reconsideration, but his motions for extension were denied, and the motion for reconsideration was ultimately denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a review on certiorari of the IAC's decision, praying for the reversal of the IAC's decision and the reinstatement of the trial court's orders allowing the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases and the appearance of the private prosecutor.
Issue(s)
Whether the civil action for specific performance can be consolidated with the criminal case for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 under Rule 111, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court, and if such consolidation is permissible under Rule 31, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the consolidation of the civil and criminal cases, including the appearance of the petitioner's counsel as private prosecutor, and the procedural propriety of motions for extension to file a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent appellate court is SET ASIDE. The Orders of the trial court, dated 20 March 1985 and 29 May 1985, are REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the consolidation of cases (Rule 111, Section 3(a)): The Court held that Rule 111, Section 3(a) is inapplicable because the civil action is ex contractu, not ex delicto. However, consolidation is permissible under Section 1 of Rule 31 of the Rules of Court because the actions involve common questions of law and fact, specifically whether the petitioner had fully paid for the lots, and a joint trial would avoid unnecessary costs or delay. The evidence required for both cases would also be substantially the same. On the consolidation, intervention of private prosecutor, and motions for extension: The Court reasoned that since the criminal action was for violation of a special law, the intervention of the petitioner's counsel as a private prosecutor would not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. The consolidation, with the petitioner's counsel acting in both capacities, was deemed conducive to the early termination of both cases and beneficial to the parties and the speedy administration of justice. Furthermore, the petitioner's motions for extension to file a motion for reconsideration were filed before the Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon ruling became strictly enforceable, thus they were not barred by the said ruling.
Main Doctrine
A civil action for specific performance grounded on a contract to sell, being an action ex contractu, cannot be consolidated with a criminal action for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957 under Rule 111, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court, which pertains to civil actions arising from the criminal offense (ex delicto). However, consolidation may still be allowed under Rule 31, Section 1 of the Rules of Court if the actions involve common questions of law or fact and a joint trial would avoid unnecessary costs or delay without prejudice to the parties' substantial rights.