DRAFT

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB)
Cabanatuan City
 

MARPO GENOVEVA U. TALPACIDO

Member of TASK FORCE on
FR. CRISOSTOMO ESTATE
                     Petitioner
 
                    -versus-                DARAB SNE Cases 2021
For: Fixing and Payment of Lease
Rentals

Resident-Lot 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:

We are the Respondents, represented herein by Samahan ng Nagkakaisang

Residente at Kapti-bahayan sa Padre Crisiostomo Estate, Mabini Homesite,
Cabanatuan City  through our officers, whom we have vested with a Special
Power of Attorney, most   respectfully submit our Motion for Consolidation and
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 and merge cases because 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
must determine if you have grounds to consolidate. Any of the following grounds will support
consolidation: 1) the cases involve the same or substantially the same core of operative facts 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)
consolidation saves judicial resources, see State v. Powell, 721 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 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 consolidated are before the same judge, move to consolidate the cases under Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(a). Before serving or filing the motion to consolidate, ask all the
attorneys involved in the separate cases to agree to consolidate. If all counsel agree 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
supports consolidation in your case. Attach any supporting documents to the memorandum,
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 consolidation in each court file affected. Any new pleadings, motions, 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

In complex, multiple plaintiff cases, the court may through stipulation and court order allow a “test
case” to be tried by one plaintiff to establish liability for all similarly situated plaintiffs. This cost
saving technique is best used when liability is almost certain and the defendant cannot or will 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 of the case, the efficient administration of justice and possibility of inconsistent verdicts
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, that alone is insufficient reason to deny consolidation where all other
factors favor joint trial. Pages v. Dominguez, 652 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Despite the
potential for delay, consolidation can solve or avoid problems such as inefficient management of
multiple plaintiff cases arising out of the same facts or occurrences and inconsistent verdicts.
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 reliefs23 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 cräläwvirtualibräry

We, Respondents, represented herein by our Samahan officials, whom we have

vested with a Special 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 rule for civil cases is found in Section 1 of Rule

3117 of the Rules 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 cräläwvirtualibräry

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
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 cräläwvirtualibräry

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 Roll No. _________

MCLE Compliance No. _________