Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37404)
Facts:
Cojuangco, Jr. and Oppen-Cojuangco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-37404, November 18, 1991, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and Gretchen Oppen‑Cojuangco; respondents include the Court of Appeals and private respondents George F. Sison and Luis R. Mauricio (among others named below).On 14 June 1972 the weekly magazine GRAPHIC published a column “Social Climbing” by “Conde de Makati,” later identified as George F. Sison, containing an item petitioners alleged referred to them and imputed corrupt, immoral acts. Claiming falsity and malice, petitioners filed on 11 July 1972 a civil action for damages based on libel in the then Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) of Quezon City, docketed Civil Case No. Q‑16725; the complaint was amended on 20 September 1972 to identify Sison specifically.
On 29 December 1972 the City Fiscal of Quezon City filed a criminal information for libel against Sison, Mauricio and Araneta, docketed Criminal Case No. Q‑2713 and raffled to a different branch of the same court. After issues were joined in the civil case and arraignment in the criminal case, petitioners on 7 March 1973 moved to consolidate the criminal and civil cases for joint trial, asserting common evidence and efficiency; Mauricio and Araneta opposed on grounds including lack of authority to consolidate separate civil and criminal proceedings, differing standards of proof and fiscal control of the criminal prosecution.
The trial court (Branch V, presided by Judge Pacifico de Castro) overruled the opposition and, in an order of 13 March/13 October 1973, granted consolidation and transferred the criminal record to Branch XVI to be tried with Civil Case No. Q‑16725; a motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated 10 April 1973. Mauricio and Sison filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals seeking annulment of those orders; the Court of Appeals, in a decision promulgated 25 June 1975, granted the petition and set aside the trial court’s consolidation order, reasoning that the Rules and statute did not authorize such consolidation and that differences in procedure and proof could produce confusion and unfairness.
Petitioners brought the present petition for review to the Supreme Court (filed 15 September 1973; the Court gave due course 10 October 1973). The parties filed briefs; during the interim the Court decided cases materially bearing on the issue—most notably Canos v. Peralta (G.R. No. L‑38352, Aug. 19, 1982) and Naguiat v. Intermediate Appellate Court...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a trial court consolidate for joint trial a criminal case and a separate civil action that were filed independently and assigned to different branches of the same court (procedural authority and discretion)?
- Specifically, may a criminal libel case and an independent civil action for damages pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code be consolidated for joint trial (substantive question invol...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)