26. Platinum Tours and Travel, Inc. v.

Panlilio
GR. 133365 (2003)
Corona, J. / n8

Subject Matter: Difference between “jurisdiction” and “exercise of jurisdiction”

Case Summary: There were 2 separate civil cases filed in separate RTC branches. First case involved the
petitioner versus a debtor. The second case involved the respondent and the same debtor, but a different
cause of action. Respondent filed a motion with RTC Branch 62 to consolidate the 2 cases. This was
granted by Branch 62). Petitioner filed petition with CA to oppose consolidation, which CA granted but
the CA gave Branch 62 the option to either return the case to original branch or decide on it as a separate
case. Petitioner did not want this so it filed petition with SC, questioning jurisdiction of Branch 62
(reasoning: since the consolidation order was denied, there was no longer basis for Branch 62’s
jurisdiction). SC ruled otherwise, saying that Branch 62 still has jurisdiction.

Doctrine/s:

Jurisdiction versus “exercise of jurisdiction”:

“Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein. Where a court
has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on all questions arising from the case is but an
exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an
error of judgment which does not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest the court of the jurisdiction
over the case.”

Action Before SC: “This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing decision of the CA”

Parties: Please use the same designation in the case ex. plaintiff-appllee

Petitioner: Platinum Tours and Travel, Inc. (Platinum)

Respondent: Jose M. Panlilio (Panlilio)

Antecedent Facts:
1. There are two (2) civil cases involved in this case
2. The first is Case No. 94-1634 filed with RTC Makati, Branch 62
 Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money with damages against Pan Asiatic Travel
Corporation (PATC) and its President Nelida Galvez
 Gist: Petitioner sold airline tickets, PATC did not pay
 In this case, Branch 62 ruled in favor of petitioner
 To execute the judgment, the Manila Polo Club shares of Nelida Galvez were executed
upon
 In this case, respondent filed a motion to intervene, claiming that Galvez already
mortgaged the Manila Polo Club Shares to respondent and thus cannot be executed
upon. (This was denied by Branch 62)
 Eventually, the execution of the shares was declared null and void because there were
irregularities in the conduct of the execution – meaning, shares are still with Galvez)
 3. The second case is Case No. 96-365 filed with RTC Makati, Branch 146
 Respondent filed a collection case against Galvez w/ WoPA1 over the shares
 (Dahil makulit si respondent), Respondent again wanted to intervene in case no. 94-1634
(the first case). He did this by incorporating in his complaint in this second case filed
with Branch 146 a motion to consolidate the two (2) civil cases abovementioned
(important)
 Judge of Branch 146 granted motion to consolidate on the condition that Judge of Branch
62 (first case) would not object; Judge of Branch 62 issued order that it will allow the
consolidation
 As a result, Branch 62 will both try the first and second civil case

CA
1. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the order of Branch 62 Judge which
allowed consolidation
2. CA – ruled in favor of petitioner and annulled the consolidation order, but CA gave Branch 62
Judge the choice of whether to return second civil case to Branch 146 or to hear and try it as a
separate case (important)
3. Petitioner filed partial MR, praying that Branch 62 be required to return it to Branch 146 or
reraffle to another branch – this was denied

Hence this petition with the SC.

Petitioner insists Branch 62 has no jurisdiction to try the second case because when the CA annulled
Branch 62’s order for consolidation, Branch 62’s basis for acquiring jurisdiction was extinguished.

Issues:
1. WON Branch 62 has jurisdiction to try the second civil case (YES)

Ratio:

Yes – The Branch 62 has jurisdiction to try the second civil case.

Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a particular case; it does not depend upon the
regularity of the exercise by the court of that power or on the correctness of its decisions.

“Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the “exercise of jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction refers to the
authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein. Accordingly, where a
court has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, as in the instant case, the
decision on all questions arising from the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error
that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment which
does not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest the court of the jurisdiction over
the case.”

In this case, no doubt that the second case is within the jurisdiction of RTC Branch 62. The fact
that the CA subsequently annulled Branch 62’s order of consolidation DID NOT AFFECT the
jurisdiction of Branch 62 which issued that order.

1
Writ of Preliminary Attachment
Dispositive: Petition is hereby DENIED

Others/Notes:

SC also found no reversible error when CA left to Branch 62 judge the discretion to decide the case or refer it to
Branch 146.

SC said that Platinum’s petition was premature; had it waited for Branch 62 judge to decide what to do with the
case, parties would have been spared trouble and expense of seeking recourse from the SC