This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is well recognized that consolidation of cases avoids multiplicity of suits, guards against oppression and abuse, prevents delay, clears congested court dockets, simplifies the work of the courts and seeks to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to litigants.[45] Generally, consolidation applies only to cases pending before the same judge and not to cases pending in different branches of the same court or in different courts. [46] | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Yet in appropriate instances and in the interest of justice, cases pending in different branches of the court or in different courts may be consolidated, consistent with the rule in our jurisdiction that leans towards permitting consolidation of cases whenever possible and irrespective of the diversity of the issues for resolution.[47] Hence, consolidation of cases is proper when the actions involve the same reliefs or the same parties and basically the same issues,[48] or when there is real need to forestall the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered in the cases,[49] provided that the measure will not give one party an undue advantage over the other, or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[50] | |||||