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. 190538November 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 CORPORATIONG.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 Casent’s 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 petitioner’s 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 respondent’s 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 petitioner’s 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 PIÑAS, BRANCH 255; HEIRS OF VERONICA V. MORENO LACALLE, represented by JOSE MORENO LACALLEG.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 CAMonzon v Sps Relova Dacuital v LM Engineering Corp New York Marine v CA