DIAZ V. ADIONG 1.
On July 16, 1991, Mindanao Kris, a newspaper published two articles entitled, “6-point
March 5, 1998 | GR No. 106847 | Bellosillo J. | First Division | Venue
DIGEST MADE BY:
Dave U.
CLUE: libelous material
PETITIONER: PATRICIO P. DIAZ
RESPONDENTS: JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, Br. 8, Marawi City, SULTAN MACORRO L.
MACUMBAL, SULTAN LINOG M. INDOL, MACABANGKIT LANTO and MOHAMADALI ABEDIN
DOCTRINE:
HOWEVER, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to dismiss prior to
a responsive pleading , the venue cannot truly be said to have been improperly laid. This is
because for all practical intents and purposes, the venue, though technically wrong may yet be
considered acceptable to the parties for whose convenience the rules on venue had been
devised
RECIT-READY SUMMARY
Mindanao Kris published two articles alleging corruption in the Regional Office of DENR
involving Macumbal et. at. Because of this, Macumbal et. al. filed a civil and criminal action
separately in the City Prosecutor and RTC of Marawi City. The City Prosecutor dismissed the
criminal complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, Petitioner, Diaz filed a motion
to dismiss on the civil case filed against Mindanao Kris on the ground of improper venue.
Diaz contends that the civil action CANNOT be filed in Marawi City because none of the
petitioners (Macumbal et. al.) in the Civil case are residents of Marawi City, and Mindanao
Kris does not have its office in Marawi City. RTC of Marawi City dismissed both the motion
to dismiss, and Diaz’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, hence the petition before the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Should the civil action be dismissed for want of venue? — NO
Court ruled in the negative. According to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal and
civil actions for written defamations against public officials should be filed at either: (1) The
city or the province where the libelous article was printed and first published; or (2) Where the
offended officer was holding office at the time of the libelous article was printed or published.
In this case, while it is true that the venue was improper because none of the respondents
were holding their offices in Marawi City, and the alleged libelous article was published and
written in Cotabato City, the propriety of venue must be questioned before the filing of any
responsive pleading. Otherwise, the right to question it is deemed waived. In this case, Diaz
has already belatedly filed his motion to dismiss. The petitioner had already submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed his answer to the Complaint with
Counterclaim.
FACTS:
complaint against Macumbal,” and “Toll of Corruption.” Both articles made allegations
that key officials of the DENR Regional Office, which include Macumbal et. al. are
engaged in corrupt activities.
2. As such, Macumbal et. al. filed a criminal, and a separate civil action with the City
Prosecutor of Marawi, and the RTC of Marawi respectively. The City Prosecutor
dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction because the complaint should be filed
in Cotabato City, where the office of the newspaper is located.
3. Meanwhile as to the civil action, petitioner Diaz moved to have the petition dismissed as
the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the case on the ground of improper venue.
PROCEDURAL AND CASE HISTORY:
RTC ● RTC dismissed the motion to dismiss.
● Despite a motion for reconsideration, the trial court is adamant that the
trial be given its due course. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.
● Diaz contends that the civil action CANNOT be filed in Marawi City
because none of the petitioners (Macumbal et. al.) in the Civil case are
residents of Marawi City, and Mindanao Kris does not have its office in
Marawi City.
ISSUE/S:
1. Should the civil action be dismissed for want of venue? — NO
RULING:
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED and the Temporary
Restraining Order heretofore issued is LIFTED.
RATIO:
1. NO
● Court ruled in the negative. According to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code,
criminal and civil actions for written defamations against public officials should be
filed at either: (1) The city or the province where the libelous article was printed and
first published; or (2) Where the offended officer was holding office at the time of
the libelous article was printed or published.
● In this case, none of the respondents hold their office in Marawi City. Macumbal,
Lanto, and Abedin hold their office in Cotabato City, while Indol holds his office in
Lanao del Norte. It is also clear that the libelous article was not written in Marawi
City, as Mindanao Kris does not have its office in Marawi as well. Therefore, it is
clear that the venue is wanting.
1
 ● HOWEVER, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a motion to
dismiss prior to a responsive pleading1, the venue cannot truly be said to have been
improperly laid. This is because for all practical intents and purposes, the venue,
though technically wrong may yet be considered acceptable to the parties for whose
convenience the rules on venue had been devised.
● In this case, Diaz did not oppose the venue where the civil complaint was filed in the
earliest possible opportunity, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 4 of the ROC. The petitioner
had already submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he filed his
answer to the Complaint with Counterclaim.
● Therefore, it his right to question the propriety of the venue is deemed waived.

1 Responsive Pleading – Are those that seek affirmative relief, and set up defenses.
2