Cojuanco v CA

Petitioners-spouses filed a civil action for damages based on Libel against the private respondents,
among others, before the RTC of Quezon City. The case was raffled to Branch XVI. subsequently, an
information was filed before the same court; and was raffled to Branch V.

The petitioners moved for the consolidation of the two cases alleging that the evidence to be
presented in both would be the same and that efforts would be saved by the consolidation of the
cases. Private respondents opposed the motion contending that there is no provision in the Rules of
Court that authorizes such consolidation. They also contend that the civil case arising from
defamation shall proceed independently from the criminal prosecution, and shall require only
preponderance of evidence. When the RTC rejected their opposition, the respondents went to CA for
review on certiorari. The CA granted the petition. Hence, the present review.

Issue: Whether or not the consolidation of the civil action arising from defamation and the criminal
action for libel is proper.

Held: Yes, the consolidation is proper. Consolidation is within the sound discretion of the court, as
long as the actions involve common question of law or fact. The purpose of this is to avoid multiplicity
of suits and to simplify the work of the court. This is also in consonance with the provision of Article
360 or the RPC which provides that the criminal and civil action for damages in cases of written
defamation shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the CFI. Provided that the civil action shall
be filed in the same court where criminal action is file.