Practice question
Court X has lawful jurisdiction over one action but lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over another proposed case. A party asks it to cure the missing jurisdiction by consolidating both because they share evidence. Which is correct?
- Common evidence itself creates every missing jurisdiction
- Consolidation may manage cases within the court’s competence, but cannot supply subject-matter jurisdiction withheld by law
- A party’s consolidation motion amends the jurisdictional statute
- The clerk may cure the defect by using one folder
- Both cases automatically become Supreme Court original actions
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html — Rule 31 sections 1–2, consolidation, joint hearing and separate trials.
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html — 2019 amendments retaining Rule 31 without amendment.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173820_2012.html — Producers Bank v. Excelsa Industries, G.R. No. 173820, April 16, 2012, main decision distinguishing forms and effects of consolidation.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_183211_2009.html — PNB v. Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, G.R. No. 183211, June 5, 2009, jurisdiction and protection against prejudice in consolidation.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.