CASE NAME: Naguiat vs IACG.R. No: 73836Date:August 18, 1988Plaintiff: ANTOLIN T. NAGUIATRespondent: HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THIRD SPECIAL CASES DIVISION, TIMOG SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RATION AND MANUEL P. LAZATINCIVIL complaint for specific performance with damages; CRIMINAL violation of PD. 957 Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violation ThereofLower Court Decision: granted the consolidation of the civil action and criminal action Court of Appeals Decision: set asideSC Decision: order of trial court reinstatedFacts: The petitioner purchased 4 lots, on installment basis, from Timog Silangan Development Corp. represented by its President Manuel P. Lazatin. The Contract to Sell stipulated that those lots shall be paid within two years. However, Antolin paid the 10%installment in February 1983 and completed payments for Lot No. 16 on August, in which petitioner was given the title to the said lot and alleged that he had completed payments for the three remaining lots on November 1983. Thus, Antolin demanded from TSDC the issuance in his favor of certificates of title for the 3 lots. However, TSDC alleged that the petitioner did not comply with the agreement and as such, he is not entitled to the 10% rebate in price. Therefore, the payments made were not its full purchase priceThereafter, on 26 July 1984, petitioner, filed a complaint for specific performance with damages, with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch LX docketed as Civil Case No. 4224 with a prayer that TCTs for those 3 lots shall be delivered in his favor.Before the civil action was filed, petitioner also filed on 5 June 1984 with the City Fiscal of Angeles City a criminal complaint against herein respondent Manuel Lazatin, for violation of Presidential Decree No. 957, specifically Section 25 thereof, which provides: SEC. 25. Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months such issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. Issue: WON the civil action and criminal action can be consolidatedRuling: Petitioner invokes Rule 111, Sec. 3 (a), Rules of Court:Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. Whenever the offended party shall have instituted the civil action to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense, as contemplated in the first paragraph of Section 1 hereof, the following rules shall be observed: (a) "After a criminal action has been commenced, the pending civil action arising from the same offense shad be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found until final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered. However, if no final judgment has been rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the same may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the criminal action. If the application is granted, the evidence presented and admitted in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action, without prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that any party may wish to present. (Emphasis supplied)"SC= the civil action that may be consolidated with a criminal action, is one for the recovery of civil liability arising from the criminal offense, or ex delicto. In the case at bar, the civil action filed by the petitioner was for specific performance with damages. The main relief sought in the latter case, i.e., the delivery of the certificates of title to the lots which petitioner had allegedly fully paid for, was grounded on the Contract to Sell between the petitioner and the private respondent. Hence the civil action filed by the petitioner was for the enforcement of an obligation arising from a contract, or ex contractu and not one for the recovery of civil liability arising from an offense; hence, the law invoked by the petitioner is inapplicable.But, as held in Canos v. Peralta, 11 the consolidation of a criminal action with a civil action arising not ex delicto, may still be done, based upon the express authority of Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court, which provides: Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. In Canos v. Peralta, where the Court sustained the order of a trial court to consolidate a civil action (an action for the recovery of wage differential, overtime and termination pay, plus damages) with a criminal action (for violation of the Minimum Wage Law), it was held that: A Court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties. ... The obvious purpose of the above rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits to guard against oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court; in short the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties litigants. 12 In the cases at bar, the nature of the issues involved, at least, the factual issues in the civil and criminal actions are almost identical, i.e., whether or not petitioner had fully paid for the lots he purchased from the private respondents, so as to entitle him to the delivery of the certificates of title to said lots. The evidence in both cases, likewise would virtually be the same, which are, the Contract to Sell, the letter which contains the conditions for the purchase of the lots and, to which petitioner allegedly affixed his conformity, the official receipts for the alleged payments made by the petitioner, and other related documents.Based on the foregoing, and considering that the criminal action filed is one for violation of a special law where, irrespective of the motives, mere commission of the act prohibited by said special law, constitutes the offense, then the intervention of the petitioner's counsel, as private prosecutor in the criminal action, will not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused. The consolidation of the two (2) cases in question, where petitioner's counsel may act as counsel for the plaintiff in the civil case and private prosecutor in the criminal case, will instead be conducive to the early termination of the two (2) cases, and will redound to the benefit and convenience of the parties; as well as to the speedy administration of justice