41

Superlines Transportation Co. v. Victor,

124 SCRA 939

FACTS: On December 1982, Bus No. 3008 of Pantranco driven by Dillomas collided with Bus No. 331 of
Superlines driven by Lorca along Lumilang, Quezon, resulting in the death of Moralde who is a passenger
in the Pantranco bus. On January 1983, Superlines instituted an action for damages before the CFI of
Quezon in Gumaca against Pantranco and the driver, Rogelio Dillomas. In its complaint, Superlines
alleged that the recklessness and negligence of the Pantranco bus driver was the proximate cause of the
accident and that there was want of diligence on the part of Pantranco in the selection and supervision
of its driver.

On February 1983, the widow and the children of the deceased Moralde filed a complaint for damages
in the RTC of Cavite against Superlines and its driver, Erlito Lorca, as well as Pantranco and its driver,
Dillomas. The cause of action against Superlines was based on quasi-delict, while that against Pantranco
was based on culpa-contractual. A few weeks later, the petitioners Superlines and Lorca filed a motion
to dismiss the civil action by Moralde on the ground of pendency of another action which is referring to
the one filed by Superlines against Pantranco.

Respondent Judge Victor denied the motion to dismiss upon finding that the two cases involved
different parties as well as different causes of action. The motion for reconsideration of Superlines was
denied.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the case filed in Gumaca should be consolidated with the case in Cavite?

HELD: Yes, the cases in Gumaca and Cavite should be consolidated. As stated in the case of Marapao v.
Mendoza, this is to avoid multiplicity of suits. And similar to the case of Marapao, this is "to protect the
interest of respondent employee, she may intervene as a party in the Bohol case and file a counterclaim
for damages against petitioner." Hence the most practical solution is to consolidate the Gumaca case
with the Cavite case. Considerations of judicial economy and administration, as well as the convenience
of the parties for which the rules on procedure and venu were formulated, dictate that it is the Cavite
court, rather than the Gumaca court, which serves as the more suitable forum for the determination of
the rights and obligations of the parties concerned.

As stated in Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney-General, the whole purpose and object of procedure is to
make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. This is to give the most perfect
opportunity for the powers of the court to transmute themselves into concrete acts of justice between
the parties before it. This is to give effective facility in righteous action. It is a means to an end where the
means by which the powers of the court are made effective in just judgements.The Supreme Court
denied the petition.