Platinum Tours and Travel Inc (Platinum). v.

Panlilio (2003) – Jurisdiction vs exercise of

jurisdiction

RTC Branch 62 (ruled in favor of Platinum making PATC president Galvez execute a sale of her shares in
Manila Polo Club thereafter Panlilio intervened but was denied) – RTC branch 146 (a collection case was
filed and allowed such collection case be consolidated with the case filed at Branch 62) –Platinum filed a
certiorari to the CA questioning the consolidation (ruled in favor of Platinum to not consolidate) – Platinum
filed at the a CA partial reconsideration (CA did not grant the prayer to divest Branch 62 of jurisdiction) –
Platinum filed with the SC petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (denied the Platinum petition).

FACTS:
 On April 1994, Platinum filed a complaint for a sum of money with damages against Pan Asiatic
Travel Corp (PATC) and its President Nelida Galvez.
o Platinum sought to collect payment for the airline ticket which PATC bought from it
o This was Civil Case Number No. 94-1643
 The judge of RTC of Makati Branch 62, Roberto Diokno, rendered a judgement of default in favor
of Platinum and ordered PATC and Galvez to pay Platinum for damages.
 A writ of execution pursuant to a motion was issued on a Manila Polo Club Proprietary Membership
Certificate in the name of Galvez and was levied thereafter and sold.
 Jose Panlilio sought to intervene in Civil Case Number No. 94-1643 since he claimed that Galvez
already executed a chattel mortgage in favor of the shares of stock in Manila Polo Club to secure
a 1 million loan and that Galvez had already delivered to him the stock certificate worth 5 million
o The motion for intervention was denied
 In January 1996, the court declared the execution sale null and void due to the irregularities in the
conduct of such sale.
o On May 1996, Panlilio filed against Galvez a collection case with application for a writ of
preliminary attachment of the Manila Polo Club shares.
 This was Civil Case Number No. 96-365
 The case was raffled to RTC of Makati Branch 146 presided by Judge Salvador
Tensuan
 Panlilio made a 2nd attempt to intervene in Civil Case Number No. 94-1643 by consolidating said
case with Civil Case Number No. 96-365
 Judge Tensuan granted the consolidation on the condition that Branch 62 Judge Diokno would not
object to the consolidation of the case on his court namely Civil Case Number No. 94-1643
o Judge Diokno allowed a consolidation and set a hearing after for the application of the writ
of preliminary attachment
 Platinum as plaintiff in Civil Case Number No. 94-1643 moved to reconsider the judgement of
Judge Diokno.
o Such reconsideration was denied.
 A certiorari was filed at the CA questioning the order of Judge Diokno that allowed the consolidation
 The CA annulled the decision of Judge Diokno
o The CA gave the discretion to Judge Diokno whether to return Civil Case Number No. 96-
365 to Judge Tensuan in Branch 146 OR to keep it in his dockets and decide on it on
himself
 Platinum filed a partial reconsideration with the CA praying that Civil Case Number No. 96-365 be
returned to Branch 146 under Judge Tensuan OR re-raffled to another branch
o This was denied
 Platinum now insists that Branch 62 of Makati RTC does not have jurisdiction over Civil Case
Number No. 96-365 since the CA already annulled the consolidation of cases therefore the
jurisdiction over such case extinguishes with such annulment.

Issue: Does Branch 62 of Makati RTC have jurisdiction over Civil Case Number No. 96-365 - YES

Ruling:
 Jurisdiction: power and authority of the court to hear, try and decide a case
 Jurisdiction may be:
o Over the nature of the action
o Over the subject matter
o Over the person of the defendants
o Over the issues framed in the pleadings
 Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter: is conferred by law
 Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired from: the time he files his complaint
 Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired through:
o His voluntary appearance in court
o Submission to the court’s authority
o Through coercive power of legal processes exerted over his person
 Contrary to the claims of petitioner, Panlilio’s collection case under Civil Case Number No. 96-
365 falls within the jurisdiction of RTC Branch 62. The denial of the previous appeal to consolidate
it with another civil case did not affect the jurisdiction of the court.
 DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the “exercise of jurisdiction”
o Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision
rendered therein
 When a court has jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, such in the
instant case, the decision arising from the case is an exercise of such
jurisdiction
o Any error committed that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely
an error of judgement which does not affect its authority to decide the case or much less
divest the court of its jurisdiction over the said case.
 There is also no error in the decision of the CA that left Judge Diokno to decide whether to separate
or decide the cases in his sala
 The court sees that the petition herein filed is premature given that the plaintiff could have waited
for the decision of Diokno on what to do on the cases