platinum tours vs panlilio

8/9/2019 Platinum Tours vs Panlilio

1/3

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133365. September 16, 2003]

PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVL, IN!ORPORATD, petitioner, vs. "OS M. PANLILIO, respondent.

D ! I S I O N

!ORONA,J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailin the !anuar" #5$ #%%& de'ision [#(o

the Court of )ppeals whi'h ruled that*

+ + +

Conse,uentl"$ the respondent -ude 'o..itted rave a/use of dis'retion in allowin the 'onsolidation of Civil Case No0 %12135 with

Civil Case No0 %42#1340

+ + + e also leave it to the respondent !ude to de'ide whether he will return Civil Case No0 %12135 to Bran'h #41 or eep it in his

do'et /ut should he opt for the latter$ he should a't on it as a separate 'ase fro. Civil Case No0 %42#1340

H6R67OR6$ the petition is partiall" ranted and the assailed Orders dated !ul" 83$ #%%1 and Septe./er #9$ #%%1$ allowin the

'onsolidation of Civil Case No0 %12135 with Civil Case No0 %42#134 and den"in petitioner:s .otion for re'onsideration$ respe'tivel"

are )NN; filed a 'o.plaint for a su. of .one" with da.aes

aainst ?an )siati' Travel Corporation =?)TC> and its president Nelida @0 @alveA0 ?latinu. souht to 'olle't pa".ent for the airline

ti'ets whi'h ?)TC /ouht fro. it0 The 'ase was do'eted as Civil Case No0 %42#1340

On O'to/er 84$ #%%4$ the Reional Trial Court of aati Cit"$ Bran'h 18$ rendered a -ud.ent [3(/" default in favor of ?latinu.

and ordered ?)TC and Nelida @0 @alveA to solidaril" pa" ?latinu. a'tual da.aes of ? 35%$18#03 with leal interest$ ? 5$

attorne":s fees and 'ost of suit0

On 7e/ruar" #$ #%%5$ a writ of e+e'ution was issued on .otion of ?latinu.0 ?ursuant to the writ$ anila ?olo Clu/ ?roprietar"

e./ership Certifi'ate No0 8#33 in the na.e of Nelida @0 @alveA was levied upon and sold for ?49%$&&&04& to a 'ertain a0 Rosario

hoo0

On !une 8$ #%%5$ private respondent !ose 0 ?anlilio filed a .otion to intervene in Civil Case No0 %42#1340 ?anlilio 'lai.ed

that$ in O'to/er #%%8$ @alveA had e+e'uted in his favor a 'hattel .ortae over her shares of sto' in the anila ?olo Clu/ to se'ure

her ?# .illion loan and that @alveA had alread" delivered to hi. the sto' 'ertifi'ates valued at ?5 .illion0

On !une %$ #%%5$ the trial 'ourt denied ?anlilio:s .otion for intervention*

Su/.itted for resolution is !ose 0 ?anlilio:s otion for Intervention dated a" 3#$ #%%50

This Court has to den" the .otion /e'ause =#> a de'ision had alread" /een rendered in this 'ase and that the onl" .atters at issue is

the propriet" of the e+e'utionE =8> it will onl" dela" or pre-udi'e the ad-udi'ation of the rihts of the oriinal partiesE and$ =3> the

Intervenor:s rihts .a" /e full" prote'ted in a separate a'tion0[4(

On !anuar" 8%$ #%%1$ the trial 'ourt de'lared the e+e'ution sale null and void due to irreularities in the 'ondu't thereof0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn1


2/3

On a" 3$ #%%1$ ?anlilio filed aainst @alveA a 'olle'tion 'ase with appli'ation for a writ of preli.inar" atta'h.ent of the

disputed anila ?olo Clu/ shares$ do'eted as Civil Case No0 %123150 The 'ase was raffled to Bran'h #41 of the Reional Trial Court

of aati Cit"[5(0 In the .eanti.e$ ?anlilio aain atte.pted to intervene in Civil Case No0 %42#134$ this ti.e /" in'orporatin in his

'o.plaint a .otion to 'onsolidate Civil Case No0 %12315 and Civil Case No0 %42#1340

On !une #3$ #%%1$ !ude Salvador Tensuan of Bran'h #41 ranted the .otion for 'onsolidation on 'ondition that !ude Ro/erto

Diono of Bran'h 18$ who was tr"in Civil Case No0 %42#134$ would not o/-e't thereto0 !ude Diono later issued an order$ dated

!ul" 83$ #%%1$ allowin the 'onsolidation of the two 'ases and settin for hearin ?anlilio:s appli'ation for a writ of preli.inar"

atta'h.ent0

?latinu.$ as plaintiff in Civil Case No0 %42#134$ .oved to re'onsider the !ul" 83$ #%%1 order of !ude Diono /ut its .otion

was denied0

On !anuar" 3#$ #%%9$ ?latinu. filed a petition for 'ertiorari at the Court of )ppeals assailin$ a.on others$ the !ul" 83$ #%%1

order of !ude Diono allowin the 'onsolidation of Civil Case No0 %12315 and Civil Case No0 %42#1340

In a de'ision dated !anuar" #5$ #%%&$ the Court of )ppeals annulled the assailed order /ut left it to !ude Diono to de'ide

whether to return Civil Case No0 %12315 to !ude Tensuan in Bran'h #41$ or to eep it in his do'et and de'ide it as a separate 'ase0

?latinu. filed a .otion for partial re'onsideration of the de'ision of the Court of )ppeals$ pra"in that Civil Case No0 %12315 /e

returned to Bran'h #41 or re2raffled to another RTC Bran'h of aati0 However$ the .otion was denied /" the Court of )ppeals on

)pril 8$ #%%&0

In the instant petition$ ?latinu. insists that the aati RTC$ Bran'h 18$ has no -urisdi'tion to tr" Civil Case No0 %123150 It

arues that$ when !ude Diono:s !ul" 83$ #%%1 order allowin the 'onsolidation of the two 'ases was annulled and set aside$ RTC

Bran'h 18:s /asis for a',uirin -urisdi'tion over Civil Case No0 %12315 was liewise e+tinuished0

e disaree0

!urisdi'tion is the power and authorit" of the 'ourt to hear$ tr" and de'ide a 'ase0 [1( In eneral$ -urisdi'tion .a" either /e over the

nature of the a'tion$ over the su/-e't .atter$ over the person of the defendants or over the issues fra.ed in the pleadins0

!urisdi'tion over the nature of the a'tion and su/-e't .atter is 'onferred /" law0 It is deter.ined /" the alleations of the

'o.plaint$ irrespe'tive of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to re'over upon all or so.e of the 'lai.s asserted therein[9(!urisdi'tion over the person of the plaintiff is a',uired fro. the ti.e he files his 'o.plaintE while -urisdi'tion over the person of the

defendant is a',uired /" his voluntar" appearan'e in 'ourt and his su/.ission to its authorit"$ or /" the 'oer'ive power of leal

pro'esses e+erted over his person0

Sin'e -urisdi'tion is the power to hear and deter.ine a parti'ular 'ase$ it does not depend upon the reularit" of the e+er'ise /"

the 'ourt of that power or on the 'orre'tness of its de'isions0

In the 'ase at /ar$ there is no dou/t that ?anlilio:s 'olle'tion 'ase do'eted as Civil Case No0 %12315 falls within the -urisdi'tion

of the RTC of aati$ Bran'h 180 The fa't that the Court of )ppeals su/se,uentl" annulled !ude Diono:s order rantin the

'onsolidation of Civil Case No0 %12315 and Civil Case No0 %42#134$ did not affe't the -urisdi'tion of the 'ourt whi'h issued the said

order0

F!urisdi'tionG should /e distinuished fro. the Fe+er'ise of -urisdi'tion0G !urisdi'tion refers to the authorit" to de'ide a 'ase$ not

the orders or the de'ision rendered therein0 )''ordinl"$ where a 'ourt has -urisdi'tion over the person and the su/-e't .atter$ as in

the instant 'ase$ the de'ision on all ,uestions arisin fro. the 'ase is /ut an e+er'ise of su'h -urisdi'tion0 )n" error that the 'ourt .a"

'o..it in the e+er'ise of its -urisdi'tion is .erel" an error of -ud.ent whi'h does not affe't its authorit" to de'ide the 'ase$ .u'h

less divest the 'ourt of the -urisdi'tion over the 'ase0
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/133365.htm#_ftn7


3/3

e find no reversi/le error on the part of the Court of )ppeals when it left to !ude Diono of Bran'h 18 the dis'retion on

whether to return Civil Case No0 %12315 to Bran'h #41 or to de'ide the sa.e as a separate 'ase in his own sala0

oreover$ we find the instant petition pre.ature and spe'ulative0 Had ?latinu. waited until !ude Diono de'ided on what to do

with Civil Case No0 %12315$ the parties would have /een spared the trou/le and the e+pense of seein re'ourse fro. this Court$

whi'h in turn would have had one petition less in its do'et0

The unfounded fear that Civil Case No0 %12315 would undul" dela" the final resolution of Civil Case No0 %42#134$ if the for.er

were retained /" Bran'h 18$ .ade ?latinu. a't with haste0 In so doin$ it wasted the pre'ious ti.e not onl" of the parties /ut also ofthis Court0

)ll told$ nothin leall" prevents the RTC of aati$ Bran'h 18$ fro. pro'eedin with Civil Case No0 %123150 Should it de'ide

to retain the 'ase$ it is here/" dire'ted to resolve the sa.e with dispat'h0

#$R%OR$ petition is here/" D6NI6D0

SO ORDRD.

Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, andCarpio-Morales, JJ, 'on'ur

platinum tours vs panlilio

Documents