You are on page 1of 2


RULE 31 A vs B pending before RTC Branch 5, Quezon object itong kung saan mo ifa file because that
City. Then you have the second case, B vs. A is two more additional cases, although the
(BRONDI) pending before the RTC Branch 10, Manila. objective is that there should only be one trial.
Then you have the third case, C vs. D and A So you try all these case. That's why you have
Rule 31 is severance and pending before RTC Branch 56, Caloocan. there in your book regarding the different
consolidation. First, remember that these two kinds of consolidation.
remedies or these two modes does bot Can you consolidate them? Different
opposite each other because they have parties yan. Can you consolidate them? YES. One form of consolidation is that it is
different subject matter, okay? Severance The only requirement os commonality of fact just a matter of pleadings. So when you
means that you have to try a case consisting of or law. Yan lang. A very good example of this prepare a pleading, let's say a motion, doon sa
several causes of action separately. So we is a case regarding a vehicular accident. I have caption ilalagay mo ito: first case, second case
studied joinder of causes of action. If the court the occasion to handle that case. Tingnan nyo, and third caseinyour caption. Can you imagine
tries causes of action and then renders a Quezon City, Manila and Caloocan. You can still a caption, diba? So ito nalang, RTC Branch 56
judgment thereon and then the second cause consolidate that. But suppose there is a fourth Caloocan, and then you put A vs. B Civil Case
of action renders a judgment thereon, this is case: number ___, then B vs. A Civil Case number
what you call severance. Or, you try the ____, then C vs. D Civil Case Number ___, yun
causes of action of the plaintiff render a A and B vs. C, MTC Branch 2, Manila ang ilalagay mo. Then the court,if it is
judgment thereon, then you try the consolidated can now arrange sino ba ang
counterclaims and render a judgment thereon, Can you consolidate this with the witnesses? Ito. Then they can now arrange,
you try the cross-claim and render a judgment three other cases? NO. Why? Because this is ikaw you are going to testify. Kasi a common
thereon, and then finally, you try the last, you an issue of jurisdiction. So, if this is an issue of question of fact and law. Ang nangyari dito sa
try the fourth or intervention, yan ang ibig jurisdiction, you cannot. akin, hindi sa akin personally ha, as a lawyer,
sabihin ng severance. Ito ay ibang iba sa Take note, these are under the same yung vehicular accident sa Sorsogon sa Bicol
consolidation, okay? jurisdiction, RTCs, okay? But if it is MTC, MTC nagkaroon ng accident ang daming namatay
lahat. about 9 or 10 ang namatay, jeep amd bus. So
Now, what is the limitation in yung ibang heors ng decedent are from
severance? You cannot execute that several Venue is not an obstruction. Sorsogon, yung iba from legaspi, yung iba
judgments,ang tawag nyan several judgment Venue will not disqualify consolidation. It naman dito sa Manila. They filed cases for
or several judgment under rule 36. You will is only a matter of venue, Manila, Quezon City, damages against the bus transportation,so iba
note that in Rule 36, you have here the Caloocan. Is this a matter of right? NO. In iba yun. May clients were from Quezon City,
appellate judgment, several judgment in these other words, if A or B or C or D files a motion they filed a case against the bus company in
separate judgment and several judgment, the for consolidation, can he demand that this Quezon City. So fortunately, sila yung lowest
limitation is that you cannot execute them as a should really be consolidated? NO. Titingnan number, so I filed a motion for consolidation.
matter of right. Kahit tapos na yon, hindi pa ng court. But where do you have to file it Yung kaso sa Sorsogon at yung kaso sa
tapos yung buong case. Thats why, if ever incidentally? If these cases are dated, the Legaspi na consolidate dito sa Quezon City. In
they will be executed, it will be done by lowest numbered case. Kasi, ang ibig sabihin fact we won that case but we were not able to
discretion, so it is execution pe ding appeal, ng lowest number, you must be reading your execute. Why? We won thousands for our
not under Section 1 but under Section 2 of book, ang ibig sabihin non the case was first client. We were not able to execute kasi it took
Rule 39. Pero ano itong consolidation? filed. So that if the case here, if the third case about 7 to 8 years to finish by that time nanalo
These consolidation refers to several cases, was first filed,then you file your motion for man kami wala na yung transportation
pending before several courts, under the same consolidation with the RTC of Caloocan. company. Nawala na. Yung isang co-counsel ko
jurisdiction, which you bring together for sabi nya maghanap tayo pare ng bus kung
purposes of one trial. The only requirement Ang mga judges kapag nakatanggap saan para ma levy natin. Sabi ko sige
there is commonality of fact or law. In other ng motion for consolidation, they will easily maghanap ka ako okay na yun wala na. So
words, common question of fact or law. So,if grant it because it is less case. You file file it mga ganyan. It took so much time.

we have to illustrate that, for example, in the Caloocan RTC, copy furnish Branch 10 Manila,

first case is ito ang number 1: these two will never object because that is one Always remember that if it is a matter
case less from their docket. Ang pwede mag of jurisdiction, you cannot consolidate if it is a
matter of jurisdiction. Okay? So that's rule 31.


Severance and consolidation are not


Consolidation = consolidate cases

provided there is a common question of
fact or law; commonality of
parties/parties-of-interest; issue of
jurisdiction = bars consolidation

Severance = look at joinder of causes of

action; Either join the causes of action or sever

Example: Case no. 1 = A v B,

RTC MLA, Br. 1 Case no. 2 = B
v A, Br. 2
Case no. 3 = A v B and C,
RTC CAL, Br.1 Case no. 4
= B v A and C, RTC QC,
Br. 1
Can you consolidate them? Yes. However if
there is a case pending before, say, the MTC
of Marikina, you cannot consolidate it, as
there is an issue of jurisdiction. But venue is
not a bar to consolidation. What is a bar is
the issue of jurisdiction.