G.R. No. L-6698; August 30, 1955
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., and FAR EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT, INC., petitioners, vs. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Philippine Air Lines, Inc. and Far Eastern Air Transport, Inc. are defendants in Civil Case No. 1865 before Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, presided over by respondent Judge Jose Teodoro, Sr. The plaintiff, respondent Capitol Subdivision, Inc., claims ownership of a portion of land within Bacolod City’s Airport No. 2 and seeks compensation from petitioners for its use. The Civil Aeronautics Administration intervened.
Prior to this case, an identical issue was litigated in Civil Case No. 444, decided by the same respondent Judge on September 27, 1950, involving other landowners within the same airport. That decision awarded rentals to the plaintiffs and was appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-4958). Another related case, Civil Case No. 597, filed by Andres Menchaca against the same petitioners for similar relief, is pending before Branch III of the same court.
Petitioners moved to transfer Case No. 1865 from Branch II to Branch III for joint trial with Case No. 597, arguing common questions of law and fact, and expressing concern that respondent Judge, having already decided Case No. 444 adversely to them, might be predisposed against their position. The motion was denied. During the trial of Case No. 1865, respondent Judge sustained objections to certain questions posed by petitioners’ counsel to witnesses Mariano C. Reyes, Emilio Buenaventura, Jr., and Paterno M. Serrano, refusing to allow testimony to explain an inconsistency in an exhibit and regarding an unconsummated contract.
Petitioners filed this original action for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to set aside the denial of the transfer, annul the evidentiary rulings, and direct the transfer and admission of the excluded testimony.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Judge has a ministerial duty to transfer Civil Case No. 1865 to Branch III for joint trial with Civil Case No. 597.
2. Whether respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining objections to certain questions during the trial.

RULING

1. On the transfer of cases: The Court held that respondent Judge had no ministerial duty to order the transfer. Rule 32, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which allows consolidation of actions involving common questions, is discretionary and applies only to cases pending before the same judge, not to cases in different branches. Mandamus does not lie to control judicial discretion. Petitioners’ failure to promptly seek relief from the denial order further weakened their position. The request for transfer was properly denied.
2. On the evidentiary rulings: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The rulings were within the trial judge’s authority to control the presentation of evidence and ensure relevance. However, the Court emphasized that trial judges should adopt a liberal attitude in admitting evidence, as doubts on materiality are best resolved in favor of admissibility, with the judge later distinguishing relevant from irrelevant material. This approach avoids potential embarrassment on appeal and aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision in the related Case No. 444 (G.R. No. L-4958), which remanded that case for further proceedings, indicating a broader perspective should guide the trial.
The writ of preliminary injunction was dissolved, and the petition was dismissed, with costs against petitioners.