Practice question
In the actual consolidation and joint decision examined in Producers Bank, the cases lost separate identity. A party nevertheless treats the decision as two separate controversies and pursues appeal and an additional Rule 65 action for the overlapping issues. What did the Court reject?
- The asserted entitlement to split review of the actually merged cases through those separate remedies.
- Every joint hearing always preserves two unlimited review opportunities.
- A second route necessarily is proper because the original docket numbers differed.
- The word certiorari creates an adequate substitute for available appeal automatically.
- The original separate filing dates permanently prevent actual consolidation.
Legal references
- Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Excelsa Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 173820, April 16, 2012, main decision, consolidation forms and remedy for actual merged cases: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_173820_2012.html
- Rules of Court, Rules 25-29, interrogatories, admissions, production and physical examination; retained text read with current amendments: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_1-71_civil.html
- 2019 Amendments to Civil Procedure, Rules 23-34, particularly the current provisions cited in each explanation: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-10-20-sc_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.