Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence Contact Us

9/8/23, 5:37 PM G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M.
OSE M. PANLILIO : September 2003 - Philipp…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws
Jurisprudence Contact Us
September 2003 - Philippine Supreme Court
Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme
Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year

2003 > September 2003 Decisions > G.R. No.
133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS
AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO:
THIRD DIVISION
https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2003septemberdecisions.php?id=847 1/28
9/8/23, 5:37 PM G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M. PANLILIO : September 2003 - Philipp…
ChanRobles On-Line [G.R. No. 133365. September 16, 2003.]

Bar Review
PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL,
INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. JOSE M.
PANLILIO, Respondent.
DECISION
CORONA, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
January 15, 1998 decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals which ruled that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ChanRobles MCLE
On-line
x x x
ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. -
ChanRobles MCLE On-line :
Consequently, the respondent judge committed
www.chanroblesmcleonline.com
grave abuse of discretion in allowing the
consolidation of Civil Case No. 96-635 with Civil
Case No. 94-1634. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
. . . We also leave it to the respondent Judge to

decide whether he will return Civil Case No. 96-
635 to Branch 146 or keep it in his docket but
should he opt for the latter, he should act on it as
a separate case from Civil Case No. 94-1634.
WHEREFORE; the petition is partially granted and

the assailed Orders dated July 23, 1996 and
September 17, 1996, allowing the consolidation of
Civil Case No. 96-635 with Civil Case No. 94-1634
and denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, respectively, are ANNULLED and
SET ASIDE, with the consequent complete
severance of the two (2) cases. 2
The facts follow: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On April 27, 1994, petitioner Platinum Tours and

Travel Inc. (Platinum) filed a complaint for a sum
of money with damages against Pan Asiatic Travel
Corporation (PATC) and its president Nelida G.
Galvez. Platinum sought to collect payment for the
airline tickets which PATC bought from it. The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1634.
On October 24, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of

Makati City, Branch 62, rendered a judgment 3 by
default in favor of Platinum and ordered PATC and
Nelida G. Galvez to solidarily pay Platinum actual
damages of P359,621.03 with legal interest,
P50,000 attorney’s fees and cost of suit.
On February 10, 1995, a writ of execution was

issued on motion of Platinum. Pursuant to the writ,
Manila Polo Club Proprietary Membership
Certificate No. 2133 in the name of Nelida G.
Galvez was levied upon and sold for P479,888.48
to a certain Ma. Rosario Khoo.
On June 2, 1995, private respondent Jose M.

Panlilio filed a motion to intervene in Civil Case No.
94-1634. Panlilio claimed that, in October 1992,
Galvez had executed in his favor a chattel
mortgage over her shares of stock in the Manila
Polo Club to secure her P1 million loan and that
Galvez had already delivered to him the stock
certificates valued at P5 million.
On June 9, 1995, the trial court denied Panlilio’s

motion for intervention: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Submitted for resolution is Jose M. Panlilio’s Motion

for Intervention dated May 31, 1995.
This Court has to deny the motion because (1) a

decision had already been rendered in this case
and that the only matters at issue is the propriety
of the execution; (2) it will only delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the rights of the original
parties; and, (3) the Intervenor’s rights may be
fully protected in a separate action. 4
On January 29, 1996, the trial court declared the

execution sale null and void due to irregularities in
the conduct thereof.
On May 3, 1996, Panlilio filed against Galvez a

collection case with application for a writ of
preliminary attachment of the disputed Manila Polo
Club shares, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-365.
The case was raffled to Branch 146 of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City. 5 In the meantime,
Panlilio again attempted to intervene in Civil Case
No. 94-1634, this time by incorporating in his
complaint a motion to consolidate Civil Case No.
96-365 and Civil Case No. 94-1634.
On June 13, 1996, Judge Salvador Tensuan of

Branch 146 granted the motion for consolidation
on condition that Judge Roberto Diokno of Branch
62, who was trying Civil Case No. 94-1634, would
not object thereto. Judge Diokno later issued an
order, dated July 23, 1996, allowing the
consolidation of the two cases and setting for
hearing Panlilio’s application for a writ of
preliminary attachment.
Platinum, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 94-1634,

moved to reconsider the July 23, 1996 order of
Judge Diokno but its motion was denied.
On January 31, 1997, Platinum filed a petition for

certiorari at the Court of Appeals assailing, among
others, the July 23, 1996 order of Judge Diokno
allowing the consolidation of Civil Case No. 96-365
and Civil Case No. 94-1634.
In a decision dated January 15, 1998, the Court of

Appeals annulled the assailed order but left it to
Judge Diokno to decide whether to return Civil
Case No. 96-365 to Judge Tensuan in Branch 146,
or to keep it in his docket and decide it as a
separate case. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Platinum filed a motion for partial reconsideration

of the decision of the Court of Appeals, praying
that Civil Case No. 96-365 be returned to Branch
146 or re-raffled to another RTC Branch of Makati.
However, the motion was denied by the Court of
Appeals on April 2, 1998.
In the instant petition, Platinum insists that the

Makati RTC, Branch 62, has no jurisdiction to try
Civil Case No. 96-365. It argues that, when Judge
Diokno’s July 23, 1996 order allowing the
consolidation of the two cases was annulled and
September-2003 set aside, RTC Branch 62’s basis for acquiring
Jurisprudence jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 96-365 was
likewise extinguished.
A.M. No. P-03- We disagreee.

1705 September 2,
2003 - BALDOMERO Jurisdiction is the power and authority of the court
DE VERA SOLIMAN, to hear, try and decide a case. 6 In general,
JR. v. PRINCESITO D. jurisdiction may either be over the nature of the
SORIANO action, over the subject matter, over the person of
the defendants or over the issues framed in the
pleadings.
G.R. No. 138238

September 2, 2003 - Jurisdiction over the nature of the action and
EDUARDO subject matter is conferred by law. It is
BALITAOSAN v. determined by the allegations of the complaint,
SECRETARY OF irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
EDUCATION, CULTURE entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
AND SPORTS asserted therein. 7 Jurisdiction over the person of
the plaintiff is acquired from the time he files his
G.R. No. 146980 complaint; while jurisdiction over the person of the
September 2, 2003 - defendant is acquired by his voluntary appearance
LUZ E. TAGANAS, ET in court and his submission to its authority, or by
AL. v. MELITON G. the coercive power of legal processes exerted over
EMUSLAN, ET AL. his person.
A.C. No. 3967 Since jurisdiction is the power to hear and

September 3, 2003 - determine a particular case, it does not depend
ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. upon the regularity of the exercise by the court of
WILFREDO OCA that power or on the correctness of its decisions.
A.C. No. 6084 In the case at bar, there is no doubt that Panlilio’s
September 3, 2003 - collection case docketed as Civil Case No. 96-365
FELICITAS BERBANO falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati,
v. WENCESLAO Branch 62. The fact that the Court of Appeals
BARCELONA subsequently annulled Judge Diokno’s order
granting the consolidation of Civil Case No. 96-365
A.M. No. 02-10- and Civil Case No. 94-1634, did not affect the
614-RTC September jurisdiction of the court which issued the said
3, 2003 - RE: order.
EDITORIAL OF THE
NEGROS CHRONICLE "Jurisdiction" should be distinguished from the
AND OTHER CHARGES "exercise of jurisdiction." Jurisdiction refers to the
OF A CONCERNED authority to decide a case, not the orders or the
CITIZEN AGAINST decision rendered therein. Accordingly, where a
JUDGE ROGELIO court has jurisdiction over the person and the
CARAMPATAN subject matter, as in the instant case, the decision
on all questions arising from the case is but an
A.M. No. OCA-01-6 exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the
September 3, 2003 - court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction
DOMINADOR V. is merely an error of judgment which does not
ASPIRAS v. affect its authority to decide the case, much less

ESMERALDA ABALOS divest the court of the jurisdiction over the case.
A.M. No. P-01- We find no reversible error on the part of the Court
1466 September 3, of Appeals when it left to Judge Diokno of Branch
2003 - EDUARDO F. 62 the discretion on whether to return Civil Case
BAGO v. JOEL No. 96-365 to Branch 146 or to decide the same
FERAREN as a separate case in his own sala.
A.M. No. RTJ-99- Moreover, we find the instant petition premature

1501 September 3, and speculative. Had Platinum waited until Judge
2003 - ROMEO E. Diokno decided on what to do with Civil Case No.
EJERCITO v. 96-365, the parties would have been spared the
ILDEFONSO B. trouble and the expense of seeking recourse from
SUERTE this Court, which in turn would have had one
petition less in its docket. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
G.R. No. 131915

September 3, 2003 - The unfounded fear that Civil Case No. 96-365
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. would unduly delay the final resolution of Civil
v. EDDIE LACHICA, ET Case No. 94-1634, if the former were retained by
AL. Branch 62, made Platinum act with haste. In so
doing, it wasted the precious time not only of the
G.R. No. 136274 parties but also of this Court.
September 3, 2003 -
SUNFLOWER All told, nothing legally prevents the RTC of
NEIGHBORHOOD Makati, Branch 62, from proceeding with Civil Case
ASSOCIATION, ET AL. No. 96-365. Should it decide to retain the case, it
v. COURT OF is hereby directed to resolve the same with
APPEALS, ET AL. dispatch.
G.R. No. 139400 WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED.

September 3, 2003 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. SO ORDERED.
v. MAURICIO
WATIWAT Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio
Morales, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 140652
September 3, 2003 -
OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. Endnotes:

PABLO V. OCAMPO
G.R. No. 144312 1. Penned by Associate Justice

September 3, 2003 - Salvador J. Valdez Jr. and concurred in
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. by Associate Justices Eduardo G.

v. CHUA TAN LEE Montenegro and Rodrigo V. Cosico of
the Seventeenth Division.
G.R. No. 145737
September 3, 2003 - 2. Rollo, p. 35.
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION v. 3 Penned by Judge Roberto C. Diokno.
EVELYN P. CAYOBIT
4. Rollo, p. 107.
G.R. No. 149617

September 3, 2003 - 5. Presided by Judge Salvador S.
MARIANO JOAQUIN S. Tensuan.

MACIAS v. MARGIE
CORPUS MACIAS 6. People v. Mariano, 71 SCRA 600
[1976].
G.R. No. 141527
September 4, 2003 - 7. Multinational Village Homeowners’
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Association v. Court of Appeals, 203
v. RANDY G. SCRA 104 [1991].
BOCALAN
A.M. No. RTJ-03-

1788 September 5,
Back to Home | Back to Main
2003 - JORGE F.
ABELLA v. FRANCISCO
L. CALINGIN
A.M. No. MTJ-02-

1430 September 8,
2003 - ROMEO B.
SENSON v.
HERIBERTO M.
PANGILINAN
G.R. No. 128296

September 8, 2003 -
NASIPIT LUMBER CO.,
ET AL. v. NATIONAL
WAGES AND
PRODUCTIVITY
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 152957

September 8, 2003 -
FAUSTINO ESQUIVEL
v. EDUARDO REYES
A.M. No. MTJ-03-

1480 September 10,
2003 - TRINIDAD
CABAHUG v. JASPER
JESSE G. DACANAY
G.R. No. 91486

September 10, 2003 -
ALBERTO G. PINLAC,
ET AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 107271

CITY OF CALOOCAN,
ET AL. v. MAURO T.
ALLARDE, ET AL.
G.R. No. 125329

ANN BRIGITT
LEONARDO, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 140762

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROGER C. ROXAS
G.R. No. 148912

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. TIMOTEO
ESCARLOS
G.R. No. 151212

TEN FORTY REALTY
AND DEVELOPMENT
CORP. v. MARINA
CRUZ
A.M. No. P-02-

1562 September 11,
2003 - ROMULO SG.
VILLANUEVA v.
CHARLIE C. LARCENA
A.M. No. RTJ-02-

1742 September 11,
2003 - AVELINA
MADULA v. RUTH
CRUZ SANTOS
G.R. Nos. 136286-

89 September 11,
2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EFREN G.
DE TAZA
G.R. No. 138366

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. RUBEN CAÑETE, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 138569

CONSOLIDATED BANK
and TRUST CORP. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 144785

YOLANDA GARCIA v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 145407

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. LEONITO
HEREVESE
G.R. No. 151081

TOP RATE
CONSTRUCTION &
GENERAL SERVICES
v. PAXTON DEV’T.
CORP., ET AL.
G.R. No. 153126

MONTEREY FOODS
CORP., ET AL. v.
VICTORINO E.
ESERJOSE
G.R. No. 153845

EFREN P. SALVAN v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
A.M. No. RTJ-03-

1799 September 12,
2003 - MARIA
CRISTINA OLONDRIZ
PERTIERRA v.
ALBERTO L. LERMA
G.R. No. 127206

PERLA PALMA GIL v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 135029

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. NESTOR CARRIAGA
G.R. No. 141600

ROBERTO
FULGENCIO, ET AL. v.
NLRC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 144639

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. BENNY GO
G.R. Nos. 144972-

73 September 12,
2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v.
RODOLFO JUNAS
G.R. No. 133365

PLATINUM TOURS
AND TRAVEL, INC. v.
JOSE M. PANLILIO
G.R. Nos. 147814-

15 September 16,
2003 - RAUL ZAPATOS
v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.
G.R. No. 155278

PRUDENCIO J.
TANJUAN v. PHIL.
POSTAL SAVINGS
BANK
A.M. No. P-03-

1740 September 17,
2003 - FRANKLIN Q.
SUSA v. TEOFILA A.
PEÑA
A.M. No. RTJ-01-

1656 September 17,
2003 - EDGARDO D.
BALSAMO v. PEDRO L.
SUAN
G.R. No. 141120

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FERNANDO
BUENAVIDEZ
G.R. No. 146125

NOVELTY PHIL., INC.
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-01-

1347 September 18,
2003 - BENJAMIN
TUDTUD v. MAMERTO
Y. COLIFLORES
A.M. No. P-00-

1370 September 18,
2003 - ALEJANDRO
PAREDES, ET AL. v.
JERRY MARCELINO
A.M. No. P-01-

1510 September 18,
2003 - MARY ANN
PADUGANAN-
PEÑARANDA v. GRACE
L. SONGCUYA
A.M. No. P-03-

1691 September 18,
2003 - JOSE S.
SAÑEZ v. CARLOS B.
RABINA
A.M. No. P-03-

1703 September 18,
2003 - EDNA FE F.
AQUINO v. JOSE R.
MARTIN
A.M. No. P-03-

1724 September 18,
2003 - VICENTE
ALVAREZ, Jr. v. JOSE
R. MARTIN
A.M. No. P-03-

1742 September 18,
2003 - SALVADOR L.
BERNABE v. WINSTON
T. EGUIA
G.R. No. 135559

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MORENO OCUMEN
G.R. No. 135563

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. BOBBY P. SANCHEZ
G.R. No. 144913

PEOPLE OF PHIL. v.
GERONIMO C. CENIZA
G.R. No. 149627

KENNETH O. NADELA
v. CITY OF CEBU, ET
AL..
G.R. No. 152351

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JAMIL MALA
G.R. No. 152604

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. LEONCIO
S.PEDRIGAL
G.R. No. 153571

BENGUET
MANAGEMENT CORP.
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 156259

GROGUN, INC. v.
NAPOCOR
G.R. No. 157957

CHARITO NAVAROSA
v. COMELEC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 142974

SPS. SHEM G.
ALFARERO and
AURELIA TAGALOG v.
SPS. PETRA and
SANCHO SEVILLA
G.R. No. 152529

SPS. HENDRIK and
ALICIA S.
BIESTERBOS v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-

1450 September 23,
2003 - RAMIRO S. DE
JOYA v. AUGUSTUS C.
DIAZ
A.M. No. MTJ-03-

1509 September 23,
2003 - HELEN
GAMBOA-MIJARES v.
MANUEL Q.
LIMSIACO, JR., ET AL.
A.M. No. P-03-

1732 September 23,
2003 - ROSENINA O.
UY, ET AL. v. LOLITA
R. EDILO
G.R. No. 123140

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. BERNARDO
CORTEZANO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 135446

COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
v. BPI
G.R. No. 136729

ASTRO ELECTRONICS
CORP., ET AL. v. PHIL.
EXPORT AND
FOREIGN LOAN
GUARANTEE CORP.
G.R. Nos. 138716-

19 September 23,
2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JOSE
PILLAS
G.R. No. 138725

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ALBERTO OLIVAR
G.R. No. 139360

HLC CONSTRUCTION
AND DEV’T. CORP., ET
AL. v. EHSHA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 140982

MARIO GUTIERREZ v.
SINGER SEWING
MACHINE COMPANY,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 141434

ANTONIO LO v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 143132

VAN MELLE PHILS. ET
AL. v. VICTOR M.
ENDAYA
G.R. No. 144533

JIMMY L. BARNES v.
TERESITA C. REYES,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 146786-

88 September 23,
2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ANDRES
T. DAÑO
G.R. No. 149295

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK v. GENEROSO
DE JESUS
G.R. No. 149370

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MARTIN ALEJO
G.R. No. 150905

CITIBANK v. EFREN S.
TEODORO
G.R. No. 151072

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 151931

ANAMER SALAZAR v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 152823-

24 September 23,
2003 - RUFINA CHUA
v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 152998

SIMON Q.
AÑONUEVO, JR., ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 156295

MARCELO R.
SORIANO v. SPS.
RICARDO and
ROSALINA GALIT
G.R. No. 156983

In the Matter of the
Application for the
Habeas Corpus of
JOSE VICTOR RIGOR
y DANAO v. The
Superintendent
A.M. No. P-00-

1418 September 24,
2003 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR v.
CELESTINA B.
CORPUZ
G.R. No. 124293

JG SUMMIT
HOLDINGS v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130087

DIANA M. BARCELONA
v. CA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 136726

PANFILO V.
VILLARUEL v.
REYNALDO D.
FERNANDO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 148924

TOYOTA MOTOR
PHILS. v. CA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 153781

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MATEO GREGORIO,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 153885

& 156214 September
24, 2003 - LEPANTO
CONSOLIDATED
MINING CO. v. WMC
RESOURCES
INTERNATIONAL PTY.
LTD.
A.M. No. RTJ-03-

1746 September 26,
2003 - ROGER F.
BORJA v. ZORAYDA H.
SALCEDO
G.R. No. 130330

FERNANDO GO v.
MICHAEL TAN and
LOLITA TAN
G.R. No. 141217

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EUSEBIO DUBAN
G.R. No. 144037

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. NOEL P. TUDTUD,
ET AL.
A.C. No. 5480

LEILANI OCAMPO-
INGCOCO, ET AL. v.
ALEJANDRO G.
YRREVERRE, JR.
G.R. Nos. 137370-

71 September 29,
2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RAUL
OCO
G.R. No. 139185

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ALFONSO RIVERA
G.R. No. 148902

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. DANILO ANDRADE
G.R. No. 149718

MARIO VALEROSO v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 152057

PT & T CORP. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
A.C. No. 5854

NORA E. MIWA v.
RENE O. MEDINA
G.R. No. 127593

CLARA C. DE LA
CRUZ, ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 136742-

43 September 30,
2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DANILO
Y. ALFARO
G.R. Nos. 140514-

15 September 30,
2003 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JUNE

IGNAS
G.R. No. 142751

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. RODRIGO OPELIÑA,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 143010

MIGUEL DANOFRATA
v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL.
G.R. No. 144230

ARTURO G. MACKAY
v. ADORACION G.
ANGELES, ET AL.
G.R. No. 148332

NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY v.
MADRIGAL WAN HAI
LINES CORP.
Copyright © 1998 - 2023 Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions | ReDiaz
ChanRobles™ | Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence Contact Us

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence Contact Us

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/8/23, 5:37 PM G.R. No. 133365 September 16, 2003 - PLATINUM TOURS AND TRAVEL, INC. v. JOSE M.

OSE M. PANLILIO : September 2003 - Philipp…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

September 2003 - Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year

ChanRobles On-Line [G.R. No. 133365. September 16, 2003.]

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari

. . . We also leave it to the respondent Judge to

WHEREFORE; the petition is partially granted and

severance of the two (2) cases. 2

The facts follow: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On April 27, 1994, petitioner Platinum Tours and

On October 24, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of

On February 10, 1995, a writ of execution was

On June 2, 1995, private respondent Jose M.

On June 9, 1995, the trial court denied Panlilio’s

Submitted for resolution is Jose M. Panlilio’s Motion

This Court has to deny the motion because (1) a

On January 29, 1996, the trial court declared the

On May 3, 1996, Panlilio filed against Galvez a

On June 13, 1996, Judge Salvador Tensuan of

Platinum, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 94-1634,

On January 31, 1997, Platinum filed a petition for

In a decision dated January 15, 1998, the Court of

Platinum filed a motion for partial reconsideration

In the instant petition, Platinum insists that the

A.M. No. P-03- We disagreee.

G.R. No. 138238

A.C. No. 3967 Since jurisdiction is the power to hear and

ASPIRAS v. affect its authority to decide the case, much less

A.M. No. RTJ-99- Moreover, we find the instant petition premature

G.R. No. 131915

G.R. No. 139400 WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED.

OLIVERIO LAPERAL v. Endnotes:

G.R. No. 144312 1. Penned by Associate Justice

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. by Associate Justices Eduardo G.

G.R. No. 149617

MARIANO JOAQUIN S. Tensuan.

A.M. No. RTJ-03-

A.M. No. MTJ-02-

G.R. No. 128296

G.R. No. 152957

A.M. No. MTJ-03-

G.R. No. 91486

G.R. No. 107271

G.R. No. 125329

G.R. No. 140762

G.R. No. 148912

G.R. No. 151212

A.M. No. P-02-

A.M. No. RTJ-02-

G.R. Nos. 136286-

G.R. No. 138366

G.R. No. 138569

G.R. No. 144785

G.R. No. 145407

G.R. No. 151081

G.R. No. 153126

G.R. No. 153845

A.M. No. RTJ-03-

G.R. No. 127206

G.R. No. 135029

G.R. No. 141600