Darryl Yap and Vic Sotto

MANILA, Philippines – The Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC), has rejected the plea of filmmaker Darryl Yap to consolidate the 19 cyber libel complaints and Writ of Habeas Data petition of comedian Vic Sotto against him in connection to his controversial Pepsi Paloma film. 

“The motion for immediate consolidation is devoid of merit. The two legal actions are inherently distinct in nature, purpose, jurisdiction, and procedure,” presiding Judge Leizel Aquitan of Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205  said in a January 14 order. 

The court explained that Habeas Data petitions and criminal procedures must be dealt with independently making consolidation legally impossible. 

“The petition and the criminal complaint are pending before distinct forums and are governed by separate procedural frameworks. Thus consolidation is legally impermissible,” the order said. 

As the court further explained, 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 correction, deletion, or destruction or malicious or false information.” 

Whereas, a criminal complaint for cyber libel is a criminal action aimed at “prosecuting the publication of defamatory statements online.” 

It also seeks to establish probable cause and impose penalties under Republic Act No. 10175. 

It further added that 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.”

In contrast, a criminal complaint for cyber libel begins with a preliminary investigation before the prosecutor’s office. 

Jurisdiction over the case is only then transferred to the court once a probable cause has been determined, the order said. 

Consolidation, according to the court, is only appropriate when actions share a common legal or factual issue and are pending before the same forum. 

Last January 9, Sotto filed a P35 million cyber libel complaint against Yap following his name’s mention as Paloma’s alleged attacker  in the teaser of the film set for release this February. 

Sotto earlier filed for a Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data asking the court to order the removal of the teaser video and all promotional materials related to the film that mentioned or referenced Sotto’s sensitive personal information, in this case, his name. 

Yap’s camp answered Sotto with a motion to consolidate the cases and cancel the initially scheduled January 15 summary hearing. 

The hearing was rescheduled on January 17. 

After the filing, Sotto’s lawyer Enrique dela Cruz Jr. told the media that the writ has been granted and should be interpreted as taking down the teaser video and ceasing publication of promotional materials for the film. 

Lawyer Raymund Fortun who represents Yap slammed the defense of Sotto’s lawyers calling their remarks “irresponsible” since the order only stated that Yap should submit a verified return within five days. 

The court then clarified that the Writ of Habeas Data issued did not constitute a take down order contrary to the claim of Sotto’s legal team. 

In a separate ruling, the court denied Sotto’s motion for a show-cause order for a social media post allegedly violating the gag order issued to the two camps.