The request of director Darryl Yap to consolidate two cases filed against him by TV host and actor Vic Sotto over his controversial film “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma” was denied by the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch (RTC) 205.

“The Motion for Immediate Consolidation is hereby denied for lack of merit,” Presiding Judge Liezel Aquiatan ruled. She ordered that the summary hearing for the petition for writ of habeas data filed by Sotto against Yap will proceed on 17 January.

In the latest ruling, the Muntinlupa court said “the Motion for Immediate Consolidation is devoid of merit.” It said the petition for writ of habeas data and the cyber libel complaint “are inherently distinct in nature, purpose, jurisdiction, and procedure.”

“The nature of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Data is a special civil action designed to protect an individual’s right to privacy and data security. Its purpose is to allow the correction, deletion, or destruction of malicious or false information. A criminal complaint for cyber libel, on the other hand, is a criminal action aimed at prosecuting the publication of defamatory statements online. It seeks to establish probable cause and impose penalties for the offense under R.A. No. 10175,” the court stated.

It added, “As regards jurisdiction, the petition for habeas data is filed directly with a proper court, which has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. A criminal complaint for cyber libel begins with a preliminary investigation before the prosecutor’s office. Jurisdiction over the case is only transferred to the court upon a determination of probable cause and the filing of an information. Once a court acquires jurisdiction over a subject matter, the court retains authority over the same until finality of judgment. As such, the case can only be transferred to another court having the same jurisdiction.”

“Hence, consolidation is appropriate only where actions share a common legal or factual issue and are pending before the same forum. Here, the petition and the criminal complaint are pending before distinct forums and are governed by separate procedural frameworks. Thus, consolidation is legally impermissible,” it explained.

The court said, “Even if the two cases involve overlapping factual circumstances, the legal issues and relief sought remain distinct. Each case must proceed independently within its respective forum.”

Last 9 January, Sotto filed a P35 million cyber libel complaint against Yap with the Muntinlupa Prosecutor’s Office after his name was mentioned in the teaser video of the film, which is set for release in February.

On 7 January, Sotto filed a petition for writ of habeas data against Yap with the Muntinlupa RTC, asking the court to remove the teaser video and promotional materials for the film that depicted or mentioned his “personal information or sensitive personal information.”

Yap, through his lawyer Raymond Fortun, filed on 13 January a motion for immediate consolidation, citing the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data issued by the Supreme Court.

In the motion, Yap stated that “with the commonality of allegations in the complaints involving the same parties, social media posts, and subject matter, Respondent [Yap] moves for the immediate consolidation of the instant case with the subsequently filed criminal actions for cyberlibel with prayer for civil damages, as mandated by Sections 21 and 22 of A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC.”

A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC, issued by the Supreme Court, mandates that “when a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.”

The court earlier ordered Sotto to file his comment on Yap’s motion to consolidate the cases.