VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC. AND MARIO HAMBALA, PETITIONERS, VS. CELESTINO YAP AND JENNY YAP AND HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO (FORMERLY PRESIDED BY HON. EUTROPIO MIGRIÑO) PRESIDING JUDGE, …

Vallacar Transit, Inc., Vallacar
for short, and its driver Mario Hambala filed this
petition to annul the order of the then Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur, dated January 7,
1982, which dismissed their
third party complaint against private respondent Hanil
Development Co., Ltd. in Civil Case No. 264, entitled “Celestino
Yap, et al. vs. Vallacar Transit, Inc., et al.”

It appears that on May 16,
1979, Bus No. 646 of
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.

On August
23, 1979,
respondents Yap filed an action for damages against Vallacar, Mario 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.^[1]

On October
21, 1979, Vallacar and Mario Hambala filed
their answer with cross-claim against Hanil, laying
the blame for the accident on the latter’s driver Eddie Gonzaga.^[2]

Respondents Celestino Yap and Jenny Yap subsequently filed an undated
motion to discharge Hanil as party-defendant in said
case, on the ground that the latter, whose address was unknown, could not be
served with summons.  On November
18, 1980, the Court
of First Instance of Agusan del Sur
issued an order discharging Hanil as defendant.

Meanwhile, on September
30, 1979, Hanil filed a separate complaint for damages against Vallacar before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, docketed therein as Civil Case No.
6742.  Hanil
alleged that the accident of May 16, 1979, which resulted in the death of its (Hanil’s) driver Eddie Gonzaga and
the destruction of its dump truck, was due to the reckless and gross negligence
of Vallacar’s driver.^[3]

On November 5, 1979, Vallacar filed its answer with counter claim in Civil Case
No. 6742, alleging that the mishap was due solely to the fault of Hanil’s driver and that it exercised due diligence in the
selection, recruitment and supervision of its employees.^[4]

On August 8, 1981 Vallacar filed in Civil Case No. 264 of the Agusan del Sur Court a motion for
leave to file a third party-complaint against Hanil.  Said motion was granted by the court. 
In its third party complaint, Vallacar
sought to hold Hanil
liable for damages suffered by its injured passengers as well as its vehicle.^[5]

On November
20, 1981, Hanil moved to dismiss the aforesaid third party
complaint advancing, as ground therefor, the pendency of Civil Case No. 6742 in the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Oriental, involving the same
parties, and the same cause and reliefs sought.^[6] The Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur, finding merit in
the motion, issued the challenged order of January 7, 1982, dismissing petitioners’ third party
complaint on ground of litis pendentia.^[7]

The respondent court 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 in Civil Case
No. 6742; that similarly, respondent Hanil, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6742, averred that Vallacar and its driver were guilty of negligence in said mishap;
and that the main issue in both
cases involved the determination of the party
blamable for the accident.

While the respondent 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 Hanil’s 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.

Civil Case No. 6742
should therefore be consolidated and tried with Civil Case No. 264 of the
Regional Trial Court of Agusan del Sur.  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.”^[8]

WHEREFORE, Civil Case No. 6742 is hereby 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.

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Makasiar (Chairman), J., no part.

^[1]
Annex A.

^[2]
Annex B.

^[3]
Annex L.

^[4]
Annex I.

^[5]
Annexes G and J.

^[6]
Annex L.

^[7]
Annex 2.

^[8]
Rule 1, Sec. 2, Rules of Court.