You are on page 1of 3

Theodore and Nancy Ang, represented by Eldridge Marvin Aceron vs.

Spouses Alan and Em Ang

GR No. 186993

PLAINTIFF: Theodore and Nancy Ang, represented by Eldridge Marvin Aceron

DEFENDANT: Spouses Alan and Em Ang
DATE: August 22, 2012
TOPIC: Improperly Laid Venue


VENUE: Filed in RTC QC
CAUSE OF ACTION: Collection for sum of money


 That Spouses Alan and Em Ang owe the plaintiff spouses the amount of $300K
o Plaintiffs live in the US
o When the defendants failed to pay, despite being sent demand letters
o Plaintiff executed a SPA – designating Atty. Aceron as their duly designated representative to file for collection
of sum of money against the defendants in QC
 Atty. Aceron hold office on QC – he then filed the case in RTC QC
 Defendants filed a MTD, saying that the venue was improperly laid
o Since they were residents in Bacolod
o The plaintiffs reside in the US
o That since the plaintiffs were not residents of the Philippines
 The venue should be in Bacolod where the defendants live
 In civil actions, particularly personal civil actions where the nature of the case is enforcement of contract, venue, or the
place where the case should be filed, may either be the residence of the complaining party, the plaintiff or the residence of
the defendant at the option of the plaintiff
 RTC QC denied the MTD
o Since the representative hold office in QC, the case should be filed in QC
o MR was also denied by the RTC
 CA cited rules on venue in civil action, and said that the attorney, being a mere representative, is not the real party in
interest – that the plaintiffs is the real party in interest, therefore
o The matter of venue should be a choice between the residence of the petitioners or respondent.
o Since the plaintiff is not resided in the Philippines, there is no other choice but to file the case in Bacolod City –
where the defendants reside

Issue: W/N the venue where the case is filed correct, NO


It is a legal truism that the rules on venue of personal actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witness. Equally
settled, however, is the principle that choosing the venue of action is not left to a plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is regulate by the
Rules of Court.

If the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only be filed in the court of the place where the
defendant resides. There can be no election as to the venue of the filing of the complaint when the plaintiff has no residence in the
Philippines. The complaint may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides.
Young Auto Supply vs. CA
GR No. 104175

PLAINTIFF: Young Auto Supply Co and Nemesio Garcia

DEFENDANT: CA and George Roxas
DATE: June 25, 1993
PONENTE: J. Quiason
TOPIC: Proper Venue for Corporations


VENUE: Filed in RTC Cebu
CAUSE OF ACTION: Collection for sum of money


 Young Auto Supply Co (YASCO) represented by Nemesio Garcia, its president, Nelson Garcia and Vicente Sy
o Sold all their shares of stock on Consolidates Marketing & Development Corporation (CMDC) to George Roxas
 8M total price, 4M dp, 4M balance in 1M each postdated checks
 After the execution of the agreement, Roxas took full control of the 4 markets of CMDC
o However, the vendors still held on to the stock certificates of CMDC as security pending full payment of the
balance of the purchase price
 The 1st check representing the downpayment was dishonored
o In the meantime, Roxas sold one of the markets to a third party for the amount of 600k, leaving a balance of
 Nelson Garcia and Vicente Sy assigned all their rights and title to the proceeds of the sale of CMDC shares to Nemesio
 Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Roxas in the RTC praying that Roxas be ordered to pay petitioners the sum of 3.4M or
that full control of the three markets be turned over to YASCO and Garcia.
o The complaint also prayed for the forfeiture of the partial payment of 4.6M and the payment of atty fees and
 Failing to submit his answer, the trial court declared Roxas in default. The order of default was, lifted upon the motion of
 Roxas filed a MTD. After a hearing wherein testimonial and documentary evidence were presented by both parties
o RTC denied the MTD
 Roxas then filed a motion for extension of time to submit his answer and MR
o Denied by RTC for being pro-forma
 Roxas was again declared in default, on the ground that his MR did not toll the running of the period to file his answer
 On May 3, 1991, Roxas filed an unverified Motion to Life Order of Default which was not accompanied with the required
affidavit of merit
o But without waiting for the resolution of the motion, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
 CA dismissed on the ground of improper venue

Issue: W/N the case against YASCO and Garcia filed in RTC Cebu was improperly laid, NO


A corporation has no residence in the same sense in which this term is applied to a natural person. But for practical purposes, a
corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is located as stated in the articles of
incorporation. The Corporation Code precisely requires each corporation to specify in its articles of incorporation the "place where
the principal office of the corporation is to be located which must be within the Philippines." The purpose of this requirement is to fix
the residence of a corporation in a definite place, instead of allowing it to be ambulatory. Actions cannot be filed against a
corporation in any place where the corporation maintains its branch offices. The Court ruled that to allow an action to be instituted in
any place where the corporation has branch offices, would create confusion and work untold inconvenience to said entity. By the
same token, a corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions in a place other than its principal place of business unless such
a place is also the residence of a co-plaintiff or a defendant. With the finding that the residence of YASCO for purposes of venue is
in Cebu City, where its principal place of business is located, it becomes unnecessary to decide whether Garcia is also a resident of
Cebu City and whether Roxas was in estoppel from questioning the choice of Cebu City as the venue. The decision of the Court of
Appeals was set aside.
Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Nolasco
GR No. 227146

PLAINTIFF: Radiowealth Finance Company

DEFENDANT: Romeo Nolasco and Reynaldo Nolasco
DATE: November 14, 2016
TOPIC: Improper Venue


VENUE: RTC San Mateo Rizal


 Radiowealth Finance Company is a domestic corporation with principal address at 7th floow, DMG Center, Domingo
Guevara St. Mandaluyong City
 Nolasco are the obligors who both maintain residence at Mandaluyong
 Respondents secured a loan from petitioner in the amount of 1.9M this loan is secured by a chattel mortgage.
o They defaulted in paying which caused the entire amount to become due and demandable
 Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with application for writ of Replevin with the RTC San Mateo
 RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction
o Citing Section2, Rule 4 ROC – since neither the petitioner nor the respondents reside within the jurisdiction of
the trial court, that is either in San Mateo or Rodqriguez Rizal must be dismissed
 Petitioners filed MR arguing the RTC San Mateo has jurisdiction over the case
o The venue is also proper, considering that there is a provision in the PN which states that any action to enforce
payment of any sums due shall exclusively brought in the proper court within the NCR or in any place where the
petitioner has branch or office at its sole option
o RTC denied MR

Issue: W/N the venue was improperly laid as neither the petitioner nor the respondent resides in Rizal, NO


RTC confused the terms jurisdiction and venue, which are completely different concepts.

Apparently, the RTC mistook jurisdiction for the more lenient concept of venue. To clarify, jurisdiction and venue are not
synonymous concepts. Primarily, jurisdiction is conferred by law and not subject to stipulation of the parties. It relates to the nature
of the case. On the contrary, venue pertains to the place where the case may be filed. Unlike jurisdiction, venue may be waived and
subjected to the agreement of the parties provided that it does not cause them inconvenience.

Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which was relied upon by the RTC to support its ruling of dismissal, reads as

Section 2. Venue of personal actions. - All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal
plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where
he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. (Emphasis ours).

The foregoing provision is not restrictive. A plain reading of the provision shows that it is merely permissive as manifested by the use
of the term "may." Moreover, the clear language of the ensuing provision of Section 4 expressly allows the venue of personal actions
to be subjected to the stipulation of the parties.

Clearly, stipulation on venue is permitted and must be recognized for as long as it does not defeat the purpose of the Rules which
primarily aims for the convenience of the parties to the dispute.

There is, therefore, nothing that prohibits the parties to decide on a different venue for any dispute or action that may arise from their
agreement. In this case, in the promissory note executed and signed by the parties, there is a provision which states that "[a]ny
action to enforce payment of any sums due under this Note shall exclusively be brought in the proper court within the National
Capital Judicial Region or in any place where [the petitioner] has a branch/office, at its sole option." 18 Thus, the petitioner's filing of
the case in San Mateo, Rizal, where it maintains a branch is proper and should have been respected by the RTC especially when
there appears no objection on the part of the respondents.