This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-10-17 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| On the question of the propriety of Judge Francisco of Branch 6 formulating the decision in Civil Case No. 5822 which was pending and tried in Branch 8, we declare that there was nothing irregular in the procedure taken. The records show that there appears to have been a previous agreement to either transfer or consolidate the two cases for decision by the presiding judge of Branch 6. As found by the CA: ...although Civil Case No. 5822 was raffled to and tried in Branch 8..., the court a quo issued joint orders dated February 16, 1993 and September 10, 1993 in Civil Case Nos. 5822 and 5823...Recognizing the apparent transfer of Civil Case No. 5822 to the court a quo, appellants' [petitioners'] counsel filed his formal appearance dated October 20, 1993 with Branch 6...There is therefore no basis to appellants' contention that the court a quo is devoid of authority to decide Civil Case No. 5822.[17] Indeed, when the respondents filed a Motion to Lift, Dissolve and Quash the Writs of Attachment with Branch 6 on January 20, 1993, the caption thereof indicated the docket numbers of both cases.[18] Likewise, on October 29, 1993, when the petitioners' new counsel entered his Formal Appearance, in the caption thereof was also written the docket numbers of both cases.[19] Petitioners' previous counsel of longstanding (whose representation dates back to the filing of the two complaints in 1979) filed his Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on October 30, 1993, and the caption thereof similarly indicated the docket numbers of both cases.[20] Subsequent orders of the court which emanated from Branch 6 also bear, in the caption thereof, the titles and docket numbers of both cases.[21] In other words, as early as six months prior to the promulgation of Judge Francisco's decisions in the two (2) cases, there appears to have been a transfer or consolidation of said cases in Branch 6 and the parties knew of it, albeit the actual date when the two cases were consolidated or transferred does not appear on record. Nonetheless, the fact remains that no opposition or objection in any manner was registered by either of the parties to the same, thereby evincing their consent thereto. It is, therefore, already too late in the day for the petitioners to question the competence of Judge Francisco to render the separate decisions in the two cases. To reecho what this Court has said before: Petitioners may not now question the transfer or consolidation of the two cases on appeal, for they knew of it and did not question the same in the court below. They may not now make a total turn-around and adopt a contrary stance; more so when the judgment issued is adverse to their cause.[22] The next logical questions are: Is the consolidation of the two cases (Civil Case Nos. 5822 and 5823) a procedural step which the court a quo could have properly taken? Is it a remedy available within the context of the surrounding circumstances? | |||||