G.R. No. 138137 - Zulueta vs. Asia Brewery, Inc.

Petitioner Perla S. Zulueta is a dealer and operator of an outlet selling beer products.
Respondent Asia Brewery, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of beer.
The parties were bound by a Dealership Agreement which governed their contractual relations.

On March 30, 1992, petitioner filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, Branch 22 (Civil Case No. 20341), alleging breach of contract, demanding specific performance and damages based on the alleged breach of the Dealership Agreement.
During the pendency of the Iloilo case, on July 7, 1994, respondent filed a separate Complaint before the Makati Regional Trial Court, Branch 66 (Civil Case No. 94-2110) for the collection of P463,107.75, representing the value of beer products delivered to petitioner.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the Makati case on the ground that splitting the cause of action amounted to multiplicity of suits and violated procedural rules.
Although the initial motion to dismiss was denied by Judge Eriberto U. Rosario, upon further motion petitioner asked for consolidation of the two cases.
On January 3, 1997, petitioner formally moved for consolidation of the Makati case with the Iloilo case.
The Motion was granted by Judge Jose Parentala Jr. of Branch 142 of the Makati RTC, with the consolidation order issued on February 13, 1997.
Respondent later filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated May 19, 1997.

On August 18, 1997, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC’s consolidation orders (February 13 and May 19, 1997 orders).
The petition questioned both the timeliness of the filing under the new 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure and the propriety of consolidating the two causes of action.
Procedural defects were raised regarding the certification of non-forum shopping and the mode of service of the petition.

The Makati case involved respondent’s claim for payment for beer products delivered, while the Iloilo case pertained to an alleged breach of the Dealership Agreement.
Although respondent maintained that the issues were distinct (i.e., one being a matter of payment and the other of contractual breach), petitioner argued that both issues arose from the same underlying contractual relationship.
The consolidation was intended to avoid conflicting decisions, to promote judicial economy, and to ensure a comprehensive resolution of all related issues.

Whether the orders of February 13, 1997 and May 19, 1997 were already final and executory, rendering respondent’s petition for certiorari untimely given the reglementary period under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whether the new 1997 procedural rules, being remedial and retrospective in nature, should apply to cases pending at their effectivity, thereby shortening the filing period from a de facto ninety days to sixty days.
The adequacy of the Certification of Non-forum Shopping, particularly with respect to the requirement that the certificate be signed by a duly authorized officer or director of a corporation rather than by counsel.
The implications of respondent’s failure to provide a written explanation for not effecting personal service of the petition, as required under Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules.

Whether the consolidation of the Makati case (concerning collection for unpaid beer goods) with the Iloilo case (concerning breach of the Dealership Agreement) was appropriate given that the issues appear distinct.
Whether a common issue of law or fact existed between the two cases, considering that the non-payment claim in the Makati case interrelates with the underlying contractual relationship explicated in the Iloilo case.
Whether consolidating the cases would serve the interest of judicial efficiency, avoid potential conflicting decisions, and promote a comprehensive determination of all related issues.