G.R. No. L-38352 August 19, 1982
ADELA J. CAÑOS, petitioner, vs. HON. E.L. PERALTA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur and ROLANDO APAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Adela Caños was charged criminally for violation of the Minimum Wage Law (Criminal Case No. 326) for alleged non-payment of minimum wage to her employee, respondent Rolando Apas. Subsequently, Apas filed a separate civil action (Civil Case No. 558) against Caños for the collection of differential pay, overtime pay, termination pay, and damages, alleging non-payment of wages during his employment and illegal dismissal.
The Provincial Fiscal and Apas filed a motion for consolidated trial, arguing that both cases involved the same parties, identical factual issues, and substantially the same evidence, which would promote convenience and the speedy administration of justice. Respondent Judge Peralta granted the motion, ordering a joint trial to save time and effort for the parties and the court.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the consolidation and joint trial of the criminal case for violation of the Minimum Wage Law and the civil case for collection of money claims arising from the same employment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order for consolidation. Petitioner’s reliance on Rule 111, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the suspension of a civil action arising from the same offense until final judgment in the criminal action, is misplaced. The legal logic is that this rule applies only when the civil action derives from the civil liability arising from the felony or offense.
Here, Civil Case No. 558 is not based on the civil liability ex delicto from the criminal charge. It is an independent action ex contractu for the enforcement of obligations arising from the contract of employment, specifically for unpaid wages and benefits. Under Article 31 of the Civil Code, such a civil action may proceed independently of criminal proceedings. Therefore, the suspension rule under the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply.
Regarding consolidation, Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court grants courts discretion to order a joint hearing or trial when actions involve common questions of law or fact to avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent delay, and simplify judicial work. The two cases here involve the same factual nucleus—the employment relationship and wage payments—and would utilize substantially the same evidence. The respondent judge’s order was a proper exercise of discretion aimed at judicial economy, with no showing of prejudice to any substantial right of the petitioner. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the consolidation order.