Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO TESTON v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193065 2012-02-27	DEUTSCHE BANK AG v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Indeed, the consolidation of actions is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its action in consolidating will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.[36] Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.[37]
	GR No. 172393 2010-10-20	BANK OF COMMERCE v. ESTELA PERLAS-BERNABE 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]
	GR Nos. 182382-83 2010-02-24	JAIME S. DOMDOM v. THIRD CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Teston v. Development Bank of the Philippines,[12] the Court laid down the requisites for the consolidation of cases, viz: A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties. (emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
	GR No. 183211 2009-06-05	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT NACHURA, J.
In Teston v. Development Bank of the Philippines,[11] we laid down the requisites for the consolidation of cases, viz.: A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[12]