This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-07-02 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is true that under the Rules of Court,[21] the consolidation of cases for trial is permissive and a matter of judicial discretion.[22] This is because trials held in the first instance require the attendance of the parties, their respective counsel and their witnesses, a task that surely entails an expense that can multiply if there are several proceedings upon the same issues involving the same parties. At the trial stage, the avoidance of unnecessary expenses and undue vexation to the parties is the primary objective of consolidation of cases.[23] But the permissiveness of consolidation does not carry over to the appellate stage where the primary objective is less the avoidance of unnecessary expenses and undue vexation than it is the ideal realization of the dual function of all appellate adjudications. The dual function is expounded thuswise: An appellate court serves a dual function. The first is the review for correctness function, whereby the case is reviewed on appeal to assure that substantial justice has been done. The second is the institutional function, which refers to the progressive development of the law for general application in the judicial system. | |||||
|
2011-12-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the hearings of the incidents of [Civil Case No. 0009], i.e., Civil Case Nos. 0048, 0050, 0130, 0146[28] the following witnesses were presented therein: a. Cesar O.V. Parlade | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The purpose of this rule is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression and abuse, prevent delays, clear congested dockets, and simplify the work of the trial court. In short, consolidation aims to attain justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.[15] It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim of affording the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases before the courts. Further, it results in the avoidance of the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the courts in two or more cases, which would otherwise require a single judgment.[16] | |||||
|
2010-02-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It need not be underscored that consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the simplification of proceedings which saves time, the resources of the parties and the courts, and a possible major abbreviation of trial. It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim of affording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases before the courts. Above all, consolidation avoids the possibility of rendering conflicting decisions in two or more cases which would otherwise require a single judgment.[14] | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, it would therefore be more in keeping with the demands of law and equity if Civil Case No. 502-M-2002 will be consolidated with Civil Case No. 438-M-2002 in order that all the issues raised by the parties in both cases will be properly resolved, and so that the evidence already presented in the former case will no longer have to be presented in the latter.[40] Consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the simplification of proceedings, which saves time, the resources of the parties and the courts, and a possible major abbreviation of trial.[41] It is a desirable end to be achieved within the context of the present state of affairs, where court dockets are full and individual and state finances are limited.[42] It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim of affording the parties a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of their cases before the courts.[43] Another compelling argument that weighs heavily in favor of consolidation is the avoidance of the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the courts in two or more cases which would otherwise require a single judgment.[44] | |||||