VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC.
and MARIO HAMBALA, Petitioners,
v. CELESTINO YAP and JENNY YAP and HON. VICENTE A.
HIDALGO
[G.R. No. L-61308. December 29, 1983.]
ESCOLIN, J.:
FACTS:
Vallacar, with Mario Hambala at the wheel, figured in a collision with
a dump truck owned by Hanil Development Co., Ltd., (Hanil for short), at
the highway at Bo. Talisay, Gingoog City. As a result of the accident, private
respondents Celestino Yap and Jenny Yap passengers of the Vallacar Bus,
suffered physical injuries, while Eddie Gonzaga, driver of the dump truck,
died. Thus they filed an action for damages against Vallacar, Hambala and
Hanil in the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur, docketed as Civil
Case No. 264. The cause of action against Vallacar was based on culpa
contractual, while that against Hanil was on quasi-delict.
The Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur issued an order
discharging Hanil as defendant. Meanwhile, Hanil filed a separate
complaint for damages against Vallacar before the Court of First Instance of
Misamis Oriental. It alleged that the accident of May 16, 1979, which
resulted in the death of its (Hanils) driver Eddie Gonzaga and the
destruction of its dump truck, was due to the reckless and gross negligence
of Vallacars driver. Vallacar filed its answer with counter claim in Civil
Case No. 6742, alleging that the mishap was due solely to the fault of
Hanils driver and that it exercised due diligence in the selection, recruitment
and supervision of its employees.
The Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur, finding merit in the
motion, issued the challenged order dismissing petitioners third party
complaint on ground of litis pendentia. It pointed out that petitioners, as
third party plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 264, alleged gross imprudence and
lack of foresight on the part of the respondent Hanil; that identical averments
were made in their answer with counterclaim and that similarly, respondent
Hanil, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6742, averred that Vallacar and its driver
were guilty of negligence in said mishap.
ISSUE:
Whether the latter case is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia
and that consolidation of the two cases is proper.
RULING:
Yes. While the respondent court is technically correct in dismissing
petitioners third party complaint, such dismissal will not obviate the
practical difficulties that may arise in the adjudication of these cases. We
agree with the observation of respondent court that, as between the third
party complaint filed by petitioners in Civil Case No. 264 and respondent
Hanils complaint in Civil Case No. 6742, there is identity of parties as well
as identity of rights asserted, and that any judgment that may be rendered in
one case will amount to res judicata in the other. But the pendency of these
two (2) cases in two different courts and the possibility of conflicting
decisions being rendered by them are factors that will not subserve the
orderly administration of justice. The latter court, to Our mind, is the more
suitable forum for the determination of the controversy since Civil Case No.
264, instituted by respondents Yap against Vallacar, Hambala and Hanil, had
already been pending before the filing of Civil Case No. 6742. Such
consolidation is desirable in order to prevent confusion, to avoid multiplicity
of suits, and to save unnecessary cost and expense. Needless to add, this
procedure is well in accord with the principle that the rules of procedure
"shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the
parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding." (Rule 1, Sec. 2, Rules Court)
Civil Case No. 6742 is ordered consolidated with Civil Case No. 264
in the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Sur. The Regional Trial Court of
Misamis Oriental is directed to forthwith transfer the records of Civil Case
No. 6742 to the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Sur. No costs.
