G.R. No. L-64250 - SEPTEMBER 1983 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-64250September 30, 1983 Superlines Transportation Co. Inc. vs. Hon. Luis L. Victor, et al. G.R. No. L-30442September 30, 1983 Cornelio Balmaceda, et al. vs. Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. L-35000September 30, 1983 Salud Young vs. Olivia Young G.R. No. L-37788September 30, 1983 Artemio Castillo vs. Filtex International Corp. G.R. No. L-38644September 30, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Mostoles, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-48255September 30, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Danielito Demeterio, et al. G.R. No. L-50476September 30, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Amando Simbulan G.R. No. L-62945September 30, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Candido De Castro G.R. No. L-61643September 29, 1983 Luzviminda V. Lipata vs. Judge Eduardo C. Tutaan, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch V (Regional Trial Court At Quezon City, Branch 84), Jocelyn O. Agcaoili and Jose J. Agcaoili G.R. No. L-56135September 29, 1983 Spouses Ricardo and Lourdes Cortez vs. Judge Serafin E. Camilon, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch Viii and Recaredo Coronel G.R. No. L-60898September 29, 1983 Gaudencio R. Mabutol and Erlinda R. Mabutol vs. Arturo B. Pascual, Manuel R. Maza, Teotimo Tangonan, Rodolfo Jardiel, Renato Colobong, Salvador Capistrano and Apolinaria Cueto G.R. No. L-50523September 29, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Mario Aquino y Makilan and Ernesto Gallego Y Remada G.R. No. L-48290September 29, 1983 Naty Castillo and Isabelo Castillo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Lamberto L. Manalo A.C. No. 2251September 29, 1983 Felicidad Tolentino vs. Victoria C. Mangapit G.R. No. L-29822September 29,1983 Jose T. Jamandre vs. Luzon Surety Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-36530September 29, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Sebastian Jervoso G.R. No. L-40445September 29, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Donald Mosquera G.R. No. L-46418-19September 29, 1983 Chacon Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-47437September 29, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Gamelo O. Mariano G.R. No. L-39746September 27, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Blandino Y. San Miguel, et al. G.R. No. L-47724September 24, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Catalino A. Maranan G.R. No. L-59593September 24, 1983 Francisco B. Asuncion, Jr. vs. Honorable Rosalio C. Segundo, in His Capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, Villasis Pangasinan, and Mayor Laureano S. Perez G.R. No. L-39743September 24, 1983 Justiniano Cajiuat, et al., vs. Honorable Ismael Mathay, Sr., In his capacity as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit G.R. No. L-39502September 24, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Isagani Ibanga G.R. No. L-60990September 23, 1983 People of the Philippines vs. Jose Gacho G.R. No. L-60073September 23, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Nenito C. Ferrer Alias Chito, Rodolfo Zulueta Alias Boy Negro and Nelson Maico Y Hidalgo Alias Dennis G.R. No. L-55943September 21, 1983 Eugenio Juan Gonzales vs. Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-56076September 21, 1983 Palay, Inc. vs. Jacobo C. Clave G.R. No. L-28772September 21, 1983 Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. vs. Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-58575September 21, 1983 Cesar Jardiel vs. Commission on Elections and Benjamin Aves G.R. No. L-56864September 15, 1983 Roque Gabayan vs. Honorable Exaltacion A. Navarro and Perpetua Leonardo and Filiberto Leonardo G.R. No. L-64183September 15, 1983 National Federation of Labor vs. The Honorable Minister of Labor and Employment, the National Labor Relations Commission, and Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. G.R. No. L-36446September 9, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Juan C. Maguddatu, Edipolo L. Maguddatu, Charles A. Maguddatu, Pedro Maguddatu and Antonio Cabayu G.R. No. L-54958 and G.R. No. L-54966September 2, 1983 Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Alfredo Lazaro, et al. G.R. No. L-30811September 2, 1983 Antonio A. Nieva vs. Manila Banking Corporation, Hon. Juan L. Bocar and Sheriff of Manila G.R. No. L-32521September 2, 1983 The Director of Lands vs. Hon. Guardson R. Lood, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, and the Quezon City Development and Financing Corporation G.R. No. L-33929September 2, 1983 Philippine Savings Bank vs. Hon. Gregorio T. Lantin, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch Vii, and Candido Ramos G.R. No. L-37748September 2, 1983 The People of the Philippines vs. Guerrero Almeda Alias "Arte" G.R. No. L-55212September 2, 1983 Saturnino Domingo vs. Minister of National Defense, et al. G.R. No. L-53830September 2, 1983 Silvestre Español vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-56576September 2, 1983 Zenaida Santarin vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System (Commission on Audit) G.R. No. L-58164September 2, 1983 Jose Guerrero, Maria Guerrero, Magdalena Guerrero Espiritu, Assisted By Her Husband Candido Espiritu, Gregorio Guerrero, Clara Guerrero, et al. vs. St. Clare’s Realty Co., Ltd., Guillermo T. Guerrero, Cecilia Guerrero, Assisted By Angelo Cardeño, Perlinda Guerrero, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-58476September 2, 1983 Fernando Ong vs. The Court of Appeals and Judge P. Purisima G.R. No. L-62961September 2, 1983 Philippine Airlines, Inc. and Capt. Jaime H. Manzano vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Salvador Gempis G.R. No. L-63723September 2, 1983 Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Arsenio S. Dizon, Jr. and Violeta R. Dizon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Superlines Transportation Co. Inc. vs. Hon. Luis L. Victor, et al. Cornelio Balmaceda, et al. vs. Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. Salud Young vs. Olivia Young Artemio Castillo vs. Filtex International Corp. People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Mostoles, Jr., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Danielito Demeterio, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Amando Simbulan The People of the Philippines vs. Candido De Castro Luzviminda V. Lipata vs. Judge Eduardo C. Tutaan, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch V (Regional Trial Court At Quezon City, Branch 84), Jocelyn O. Agcaoili and Jose J. Agcaoili Spouses Ricardo and Lourdes Cortez vs. Judge Serafin E. Camilon, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch Viii and Recaredo Coronel Gaudencio R. Mabutol and Erlinda R. Mabutol vs. Arturo B. Pascual, Manuel R. Maza, Teotimo Tangonan, Rodolfo Jardiel, Renato Colobong, Salvador Capistrano and Apolinaria Cueto People of the Philippines vs. Mario Aquino y Makilan and Ernesto Gallego Y Remada Naty Castillo and Isabelo Castillo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Lamberto L. Manalo Felicidad Tolentino vs. Victoria C. Mangapit Jose T. Jamandre vs. Luzon Surety Company, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Sebastian Jervoso People of the Philippines vs. Donald Mosquera Chacon Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Gamelo O. Mariano People of the Philippines vs. Blandino Y. San Miguel, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Catalino A. Maranan Francisco B. Asuncion, Jr. vs. Honorable Rosalio C. Segundo, in His Capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch V, Villasis Pangasinan, and Mayor Laureano S. Perez Justiniano Cajiuat, et al., vs. Honorable Ismael Mathay, Sr., In his capacity as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit The People of the Philippines vs. Isagani Ibanga People of the Philippines vs. Jose Gacho The People of the Philippines vs. Nenito C. Ferrer Alias Chito, Rodolfo Zulueta Alias Boy Negro and Nelson Maico Y Hidalgo Alias Dennis Eugenio Juan Gonzales vs. Hon. Court of Appeals Palay, Inc. vs. Jacobo C. Clave Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. vs. Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc. Cesar Jardiel vs. Commission on Elections and Benjamin Aves Roque Gabayan vs. Honorable Exaltacion A. Navarro and Perpetua Leonardo and Filiberto Leonardo National Federation of Labor vs. The Honorable Minister of Labor and Employment, the National Labor Relations Commission, and Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc. The People of the Philippines vs. Juan C. Maguddatu, Edipolo L. Maguddatu, Charles A. Maguddatu, Pedro Maguddatu and Antonio Cabayu Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Alfredo Lazaro, et al. Antonio A. Nieva vs. Manila Banking Corporation, Hon. Juan L. Bocar and Sheriff of Manila The Director of Lands vs. Hon. Guardson R. Lood, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, and the Quezon City Development and Financing Corporation Philippine Savings Bank vs. Hon. Gregorio T. Lantin, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch Vii, and Candido Ramos The People of the Philippines vs. Guerrero Almeda Alias "Arte" Saturnino Domingo vs. Minister of National Defense, et al. Silvestre Español vs. Court of Appeals Zenaida Santarin vs. Employees’ Compensation Commission and Government Service Insurance System (Commission on Audit) Jose Guerrero, Maria Guerrero, Magdalena Guerrero Espiritu, Assisted By Her Husband Candido Espiritu, Gregorio Guerrero, Clara Guerrero, et al. vs. St. Clare’s Realty Co., Ltd., Guillermo T. Guerrero, Cecilia Guerrero, Assisted By Angelo Cardeño, Perlinda Guerrero, etc., et al. Fernando Ong vs. The Court of Appeals and Judge P. Purisima Philippine Airlines, Inc. and Capt. Jaime H. Manzano vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Salvador Gempis Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Arsenio S. Dizon, Jr. and Violeta R. Dizon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-64250, September 30, 1983 ]
SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. and ERLITO LORCA, Petitioners, v. HON. LUIS L. VICTOR, Judge Presiding over Branch XVI of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, TIMOTEA T. MORALDE, CAYETANO T. MORALDE, JR., ALEXANDER T. MORALDE, EMMANUEL T. MORALDE, and JOCELYN MORALDE ABELLANA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ESCOLIN,J.:
A petition forcertiorarito set aside the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court in CA-G.R. No. SP-00708 entitled "Superlines Transportation Co., Inc., Et. Al. versus Hon. Luis L. Victor, Et Al.," which affirmed the orders dated March 28 and April 27, 1983 of herein respondent Judge Luis L. Victor in Civil Case No. N-4338 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, entitled "Timotea T. Moralde, Et. Al. versus Pantranco South Express, Inc., Et. Al."
On December 19, 1982, Bus No. 3008 of the Pantranco South Express, Inc., Pantranco for short, driven by Rogelio Dillomas, collided with Bus No. 331 of the Superlines Transportation Co., Inc., Superlines for short, then driven by Erlito Lorca along the highway at Lumilang, Calauag, Quezon, resulting in the instantaneous death of Cayetano P. Moralde, Sr., a passenger in the Pantranco bus.
On January 4, 1983, Superlines instituted an action for damages before the then Court of First Instance of Quezon, Gumaca Branch, against Pantranco and Rogelio Dillomas, driver of said Pantranco Bus No. 3008. In its complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 1671-G, Superlines alleged that the recklessness and negligence of the Pantranco bus driver was the proximate cause of the accident and that there was want of diligence on the part of Pantranco in the selection and supervision of its driver.
On February 11, 1983, private respondents Timotea T. Moralde, widow of the deceased Cayetano P. Moralde, Sr., and her children, Cayetano, Jr., Alexander, Ramon, Emmanuel, all surnamed Moralde, and Jocelyn M. Abellana, filed a complaint for damages, docketed as Civil Case No. N-4338 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, against Superlines and its driver, Erlito Lorca, as well as Pantranco and its driver, Rogelio Dillomas. The cause of action pleaded against Superlines was based on quasi-delict, while that against Pantranco, on culpa-contractual.
On February 28, 1983, herein petitioners Superlines and its driver Erlito Lorca filed a motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. N-4338 on the ground of pendency of another action, obviously referring to Civil Case No. 1671-G pending before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon, Gumaca Branch.
Finding that the two cases (Civil Cases No. 1671-G and No. N-4338) involved different parties as well as different causes of action, respondent Judge Luis Victor denied the motion to dismiss in the challenged order of March 28, 1983. Superlines moved for a reconsideration, but the same was denied on April 27, 1983.
Dissatisfied, Superlines filed with the Intermediate Appellate Court a petition forcertiorariand prohibition with preliminary injunction, which petition, however, was denied due course. Hence, this present recourse.
It is suggested by petitioners that private respondents Moraldes should pursue their claim for damages by intervening in the Gumaca action, pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court and in the light of Municipality of Hagonoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Petitioners’ stand is consistent with our ruling in the case of Marapao v. Mendoza, 119 SCRA 97, where We held that:
"While respondent Castillo has not been impleaded in the Bohol case, she has similar interests as Hotel de Mercedes, the defendant therein which is her employer. Petitioner and private respondent both claim damages based on the same incident. A decision, whether in favor of petitioner or private respondent in the Bohol case would amount tores judicatain the Cebu case. Damages in favor of one party would preclude damages in favor of the other.
"There is an additional reason for dismissal and that is, to avoid multiplicity of suits. (Ago Timber Co. v. Hon. Ruiz, Et Al., 21 SCRA 138 (1967); Erlanger v. Villamor, 98 Phil. 1003 (1956); Teodoro, Jr. v. Mirasol, 99 Phil. 150 (1956)."
"To protect the interests of respondent employee, she may intervene as a party in the Bohol case and file a counterclaim for damages against petitioner.ℒαwρhi৷
There is, however, a more pragmatic solution to the controversy at bar; and that is to consolidate the Gumaca case with the Cavite case. Considerations of judicial economy and administration, as well as the convenience of the parties for which the rules on procedure and venue were formulated, dictate that it is the Cavite court, rather than the Gumaca court, which serves as the more suitable forum for the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties concerned.
As observed by both the trial and appellate courts, to require private respondents who are all residents of Kawit, Cavite, to litigate their claims in the Quezon Court would unnecessarily expose them to considerable expenses. On the other hand, no like prejudice would befall the defendants transportation companies if they were required to plead their causes in Cavite, for such change of venue would not expose them to expenses which they are not already liable to incur in connection with the Gumaca case. The objection interposed by Superlines that it has its offices in Atimonan, Quezon, should not detract from the overall convenience afforded by the consolidation of cases in the Cavite Court. For apart from the fact that petitioner and its driver are represented by the same counsel with offices located in Manila, defendants transportation companies can readily avail of their facilities for conveying their witnesses to the place of trial.
The ordered consolidation of cases, to our mind, crystallizes into reality the thinking of our predecessors that:
. . . The whole purpose and object of procedure is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. The most perfect procedure that can be devised is that which gives opportunity for the most complete and perfect exercise of the powers of the court within the limitations set by natural justice. It is that one which, in other words, gives the most perfect opportunity for the powers of the court to transmute themselves into concrete acts of justice between the parties before it. The purpose of such a procedure is not to restrict the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, but to give it effective facility in righteous action. It may be said in passing that the most salient objection which can be urged against procedure today is that it so restricts the exercise of the court’s powers by technicalities that part of its authority effective for justice between the parties is many times an inconsiderable portion of the whole. The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. It was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. It does not constitute the thing itself which courts are always striving to secure to litigants. It is designed as the means best adapted to obtain that thing. In other words, it is a means to an end. It is the means by which the powers of the court are made effective in just judgments. When it loses the character of the one and takes on that of the other the administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory and lays itself open to grave criticism. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney-General, 20 Phil. 523)
WHEREFORE,the instant petition is hereby denied. Civil Case No. 1671-G of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon is hereby ordered consolidated with Civil Case No. N-4338 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon, Gumaca Branch, is directed to transfer, without unnecessary delay, the records of Civil Case No. 1671-G to the Regional Court of Cavite, Branch XVI.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos and Relova, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr. and De Castro, JJ., are on leave.