Motion To Consolidate

 

 DRAFT

Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION ADJUDICATIO N BOARD (DARAB) Cabanatuan City   MARPO GENOVEVA U. TALPACIDO Member of TASK FORCE on FR. CRISOSTOMO ESTATE   Petitioner    -versusDARAB SNE Cases 2021 For: Fixing and Payment of Lease Rentals Resident-Lot Occupants Occupants of the Fr. Crisostomo Estate in Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan City   Represented by the Samahan ng Nagkakaisang Residente at Kapit-bahayan sa Fr. Crisostomo Estate(Samahan), Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan City   Respondents

x---------------------------------------------------------------------x

JOINT OMNIBUS MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (SPA) OF THE ABOVE DARAB CASES

Petitioner, by counsel, to this Honorable DARAB respectfully states: Samahan ahan ng Nagk Nagkakai akaisang sang We ar aree th thee Re Resp spon onde dent nts, s, re repr pres esen ente ted d he here rein in by Sam Residente at Kapti-bahayan sa Padre Crisiostomo Estate, Mabini Homesite, Cabana Cab anatu tuan an Cit City y through our officers, whom we have vested with a Special

 

Power of Attorney respectfull ctfully y submit our Motion Motion for Consolid Consolidation ation and and Attorney,, most respe Recognition of the Special Power of Attorney to all the Summonses and Notice of  Conferences issued us by the petitioner.

1. we move to consolidate consolidate and merge cases because all all the cases under the Padre Crisostomo Estate in Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan City as they basically same issues and involve all the said residents. Another purpose is to avoid the possibility of conflicting decision. This reason are in line with the object of consolidation, which avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, simplify the work of the DARAB and save unnecessary cost and expenses.

THE PROCESS: HOW TO CONSOLIDATE 

First, determine if a motion to consolidate is best for your client. Some factors to consider are whether consolidation will: 1) delay your trial date; 2) increase or save expenses; 3) join you in front of a jury with a party who is sympathetic or unsympathetic; 4) join your opponent in front of a jury with a party who is sympathetic or unsympathetic. Ultimately, you must make the decision in the best interests of your client. If you do decide that consolidation is appropriate for your case, then you mustt det mus determ ermine ine if you hav have e gro ground unds s to con consol solida idate. te. An Any y of the fol follow lowing ing gro ground unds s wil willl sup suppor portt consolidat conso lidation: ion: 1) the cases involve the same or subst substantia antially lly the same core of operative operative fact facts s and questions of law; 2) consolidation of the actions avoids unnecessary costs, delays, or the possibility of inconsistent verdicts, Travelers Exp., Inc. v. Acosta, 397 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); 3) consolidat conso lidation ion saves judic judicial ial resources, resources, see State v. Powel Powell, l, 721 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) 1998).. If  you have grounds to consolidate, before cases may be consolidated for trial, they should be set before the same judge. Pages v. Dominguez, 652 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). This type of  transfer is done by local or administrative rule and is different from transfers under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.060. If the cases are not before the same judge, move to transfer the latest filed case to the judge handing the case with the oldest case number. In your motion to consolidate, state why the case should be sent to another judge. Allege the following grounds to support a motion to transfer: 1) the case is substantially the same as the case pending before another judge; and 2) the case pending before the other judge has an older case number. If you have grounds to consolidate and all the cases to be conso consolidate lidated d are before the same judge, move to consol consolidate idate the cases under Florid Florida a Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(a). Before serving or filing the motion to consolidate, ask all the atto at torn rney eys s in invo volv lved ed in th the e se sepa para rate te ca case ses s to ag agre ree e to co cons nsol olid idat ate. e. If al alll co coun unse sell ag agre ree e to consolidation, have them sign a stipulation. Next, prepare a proposed agreed order granting the motion to consolidate and submit the motion, stipulation, and agreed order to the court. If all counsel do not agree to consolidate, submit the motion and a memorandum of law showing why the court should consolidate the cases. Set the matter for hearing and provide the court with case law that suppor sup ports ts con consol solida idatio tion n in you yourr cas case. e. At Attac tach h any sup suppor portin ting g doc docume uments nts to the mem memora orandu ndum, m, including affidavits that establish good reasons for consolidation. Be sure to review the local rules or  customs for specific rules and guidelines regarding motion practice. When you move to consolidate actions, ask the court to indicate which action will continue to exist and which ones will be abated

 

because they have been consolidated with the “continuing” action. The other actions abate upon your filing of the order of consol consolidatio idation n in each court file affected. affected. Any new pleadings, pleadings, motio motions, ns, or  other documents in the surviving action will have the caption of the surviving action only and this caption should reflect the case numbers of the consolidated cases. “TEST” CASES AS A PRODUCT OF CONSOLIDATION 

multiple plaint In complex, multiple plaintiff iff cases, the court may through stipulation stipulation and court order allow a “test case” be tried is bybest one used plaintiff to establish for all similarly situated plaintiffs. This savingto technique when liability is liability almost certain and the defendant cannot or willcost not admit liability. The test case is also tried on damages so that it can be appealed if necessary. The result may then serve as a template for resolution of the remaining cases by settlement. If the remaining cases do not settle, they will be tried on damages, but not liability, because the parties will have stipulated to be bound by the liability result. BE WARY OF AN OPPONENT THAT MOVES TO CONSOLIDATE 

 A party may use consolidation as a delaying tactic. Courts may be reluctant to consolidate if it will interfere with the timing of events that occur before trial. See Maharaj, 619 So. 2d at 401 (appellate court reversed refusal to consolidate that would have delayed trial date because, under the specific facts fac ts of the cas case, e, the eff effici icient ent adm admini inistr strati ation on of jus justic tice e and pos possib sibilit ility y of inc incons onsist istent ent ver verdic dicts ts outweighed the interest in proceeding to a speedy trial). Consolidated cases may not be tried until all cases are ready for trial. Although consolidation with a case that is not yet ready for trial may delay a case that is ready for trial, thatv.alone is insufficient reason to deny where all other  factors favor joint trial. Pages Dominguez, 652 So. 2d 864 (Fla. consolidation 4th DCA 1995). Despite the potential for delay, consolidation can solve or avoid problems such as inefficient management of  multip mul tiple le pla plaint intiff iff cas cases es ari arisin sing g out of the sam same e fac facts ts or occ occurr urrenc ences es and inc incons onsist istent ent ver verdic dicts. ts. Tommie v. LaChance, 412 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Conversely, consolidation can also cause problems, such as delay, Maharaj, 619 So. 2d at 401, difficulties with venue, interference with plaintiff’s selection of the forum, Wagner, 397 So. 2d at 377, added expense, overburdening of   judicial resources, Pages, 652 So. 2d at 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Defendants are more likely to move to consolidate cases because consolidation can reduce damages. This is because juries often award less money in cases with one defendant and multiple plaintiffs because the jury perceives that the defendant is paying out a lot of money. Moreover, if any one of the plaintiffs’ cases is weak, it can weaken all the cases, as juries tend to be most influenced by the plaintiff who is the least appealing. Consolidation can also save the defendant attorney fees when one attorney represents the defendant in several different but related cases. On the other hand, Plaintiffs are often gamblers and are less likely to move to consolidate for the aforementioned reasons. A weak case on liability will result in a zero verdict for all consolidated cases, but by keeping the cases separate, one weak case does not jeopardize the stronger ones. The decision on whether to consolidate requires in depth knowledge of your case and a multi-tiered analysis of the pros and cons of consolidation. Undoubtedly, the decision of whether to consolidate is one of the most important decisions you will have to make when faced with it, but careful consideration of the factors listed herein will help to ensure a successful result.

We likewise, move the to recognize the Special Power of Attorney vested to the officers Samahan by the residents of the Padre Crisostomo Estate

 

as they had sought the same reliefs 23 or involved the same parties and basically the same issues. 24 Another purpose was to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions.25 These reasons are in line with the object of consolidation, which is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court and save unnecessary costs and expense.26 cräläwvirtualibr cr äläwvirtualibr äry

We, Respondents, represented herein by our Samahan officials, whom we have vested with with a Special Power Power of Attorney, most respectfully submit our Collective Answer to the Summonses issued us, with Motion to Dismiss, and in support thereof, most truthfully state the following:

The counterpart for civil cases is found in Section 1 of Rule 3117 of the Rules rule of Court. Similarly, jurisprudence has laid down the requisites for the consolidation of cases. As held in Caos v. Peralta,18 joint trial is permissible x x x where the [actions] 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. x x x.19 cräläwvirtu alibräry

Sideco v. Paredes22 allowed a consolidated appeal of 16 cases involving a common question of law. Joint trial was deemed necessary to minimize therein appellants expenses in pursuing his appeal.

Other cases were consolidated, as they had sought the same reliefs23 or involved the same parties and basically the same issues.24 Another purpose was to avoid the possibility of conflicting 25

decisions.  These reasons are inmultiplicity line with the objectguard of consolidation, which is to avoid of suits, against

 

oppression or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court and save unnecessary costs and expense.26 cräläwvirtua libräry

This is a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage which was filed on 26 June 2013. On the same date, a Protection Order with application for TPO and Support Pendente Lite pursuant to Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-C or the Rules on Violence Against Women and Their Children Act involving the above-mentioned parties was filed and raffled before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City Branch 113 with Civil Case no. BCV 2013-84. That the two petitions involve the same parties with intertwined issues and subject matters. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be granted to consolidate the two actions in the Regional Trial Court Branch 113, Pasay City where the declaration of  nullity of marriage was raffled which may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay and to serve the best interests of the parties and to settle expeditiously the issues involved Imus City for Pasay City, 7 July 2013. LOMIBAO LAW OFFICE 406 Violago Homes, Litex, Quezon City Tel. No. 0917- 8032- 788 Email Add.: _________________________  by:  _______________  _______ _______________ ______________ _____________ ________  __  IBP No. _________ __________ CHAPTER PTR No. _________, _________ , _________  Attorney’s  Attorney ’s Roll No. No. _________ _________ MCLE Compliance No. _________