This case has been cited 4 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. | |||||
|
2005-09-13 |
|||||
| On December 22, 1999, petitioners filed with the CA Fourteenth Division a motion to withdraw[6] their petition for certiorari and prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 56211, the first petition). | |||||