8/10/2019 Sy vs. Tyson

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-56763 December 15, 1982

O!N S" #$% UN&'ERS(L P(RTS SUPPL" CORPOR(T&ON, petitioners,vs.T"SON ENTERPR&SES, &NC., UDGE GREGOR&O G. P&NED( o) *+e Cor* o) r/* &$/*#$ce o)R0#, P#/ r#$c+ 44& #$% COURT O (PPE(LS, respondents.

Abraham D. Cana for petitioners.

Alberto A. Domingo for private respondent.

(U&NO, J:

his is a case about the venue of a collection suit. On !u"ust #$, %$&$, 'son Enterprises, Inc. fileda"ainst (ohn S' and )niversal Parts Suppl' Corporation in the Court of *irst Instance of Ri+al, Pasi"ranch --I, a coplaint for the collection of P#//,012.0/ plus interest, attorne'3s fees and liti"atione4penses 5Civil Case No. 1216#7.

It is alle"ed in the coplaint that (ohn S', doin" business under the trade nae, )niversal PartsSuppl', is a resident of *uentebella Subdivision, acolod Cit' and that his co8defendant, )niversalParts Suppl' Corporation, alle"edl' controlled b' S', is doin" business in acolod Cit'.

Curiousl' enou"h, there is no alle"ation in the coplaint as to the office or place of business ofplaintiff 'son Enterprises, Inc., a fir actuall' doin" business at %6#2 Ma"dalena, no9 :.Masan";a' Street, inondo, Manila 5p. 0$, Rollo7.

ustif' the filin" of the suit in Pasi", Ri+al instead of in Manila.

Defendant S' and )niversal Parts Suppl' Corporation first filed a otion for e4tension of tie to filetheir ans9er and later a otion for a bill of particulars. he latter otion 9as denied. hen, the' fileda otion to disiss on the "round of iproper venue.

he' invo;ed the provision of section #5b7, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court that personal actions ?a'be coenced and tried 9here the defendant or an' of the defendants resides or a' be found, or9here the plaintiffs or an' of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.?

o stren"then that "round, the' also cited the stipulation in the sales invoice that ?the partiese4pressl' subit to the >urisdiction of the Courts of the Cit' of Manila for an' le"al action arisin" outof? the transaction 9hich stipulation is @uoted in para"raph 2 of plaintiff3s coplaint.

8/10/2019 Sy vs. Tyson

2/4

he plaintiff opposed the otion to disiss on the "round that the defendants had 9aived theob>ection based on iproper venue because the' had previousl' filed a otion for a bill ofparticulars 9hich 9as not "ranted. he trial court denied the otion to disiss on the "round that b'filin" a otion for a bill of particulars the defendants 9aived their ob>ection to the venue. hat denialorder 9as assailed in a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of !ppeals 9hich issued on(ul' #$, %$/6 a restrainin" order, en>oinin" respondent >ud"e fro actin" on the case. Ae

disre"arded the restrainin" order 5p. %11, Rollo7.

he !ppellate Court in its decision of October =, %$/6 disissed the petition. It ruled that the partiesdid not intend Manila as the e4clusive venue of the actions arisin" under their transactions and thatsince the action 9as filed in Pasi", 9hich is near Manila, no useful purpose 9ould be served b'disissin" the sae and orderin" that it be filed in Manila 5S' vs. Pineda, C!8:.R. No. SP8%6&&07.hat decision 9as appealed to this Court.

here is no @uestion that the venue 9as iproperl' laid in this case. he place of business ofplaintiff 'son Enterprises, Inc., 9hich for purposes of venue is considered as its residence 5%/ C.(.S0/1B Clavecilla Radio s'ste vs. !ntillon, 8###1/, *ebruar' %/, %$=&, %$ SCR! 1&$7, because acorporation has a personalit' separate and distinct fro that of its officers and stoc;holders.

Conse@uentl', the collection suit should have been filed in Manila, the residence of plaintiffcorporation and the place desi"nated in its sales invoice, or it could have been filed also in acolodCit', the residence of defendant S'.

ected to in aotion to disiss it is deeed 9aived? and it can no lon"er be pleaded as an affirative defense inthe ans9er 5Sec. 0, Rule %=7.

In this case, the petitioners, before filin" their ans9er, filed a otion to disiss based on ipropervenue. hat otion 9as seasonabl' filed 5Republic vs. Court of *irst Instance of Manila, 816/1$,Noveber #/, %$&0, =/ SCR! #1%, #1$7. he fact that the' filed a otion for a bill of particularsbefore the' filed their otion to disiss did not constitute a 9aiver of their ob>ection to the venue.

It should be noted that the provision of Section 1&& of the Code of Civil Procedure that ?the failure ofa defendant to ob>ect to the venue of the action at the tie of enterin" his appearance in the actionshall be deeed a 9aiver on his part of all ob>ection to the place or tribunal in 9hich the action isbrou"ht? is not found in the Rules of Court.

!nd the provision of section 2, Rule 0 of the %$26 Rules of Court that ?9hen iproper venue is not

ob>ected to prior to the trial, it is deeed 9aived? is not reproduced in the present Rules of Court.

o repeat, 9hat section 2 of Rule 2 of the present Rules of court provides is that the ob>ection toiproper venue should be raised in a otion to disiss seasonabl' filed and, if not so raised, thenthe said ob>ection is 9aived. Section 2 does not provide that the ob>ection based on iproper venueshould be interposed b' eans of a special appearance or before an' pleadin" is filed.

8/10/2019 Sy vs. Tyson

3/4

he rules on venue, li;e the other procedural rules, are desi"ned to insure a >ust and orderl'adinistration of >ustice or the ipartial and evenhanded deterination of ever' action andproceedin". Obviousl', this ob>ective 9ill not be attained if the plaintiff is "iven unrestricted freedoto choose the court 9here he a' file his coplaint or petition.

he choice of venue should not be left to the plaintiff3s 9hi or caprice. Ae a' be ipelled b' soe

ulterior otivation in choosin" to file a case in a particular court even if not allo9ed b' the rules onvenue.

!s perspicaciousl' observed b' (ustice Moreland, the purpose of procedure is not to restrict thecourt3s >urisdiction over the sub>ect atter but to "ive it effective facilit' ?in ri"hteous action?, ?tofacilitate and proote the adinistration of >ustice? or to insure ?>ust >ud"ents? b' eans of a fairhearin". If that ob>ective is not achieved, then ?the adinistration of >ustice becoes incoplete andunsatisfactor' and la's itself open to "rave criticis.? 5Manila Railroad Co. vs. !ttorne' :eneral, #6Phil. 0#1, 016.7

he case of Marquez Lim Cay vs. Del Rosario, 00 Phil. $=#, does not sustain the trial court3s order ofdenial because in that case the defendants, before filin" a otion to disiss on the "round of

iproper venue, interposed a deurrer on the "round that the coplaint does not state a cause ofaction. hen, the' filed a otion for the dissolution of an attachent, posted a bond for itsdissolution and later filed a otion for the assessent of the daa"es caused b' the attachent. !llthose acts constituted a subission to the trial court3s >urisdiction and a 9aiver of the ob>ectionbased on iproper venue under section 1&& of the Code of Civil Procedure.

he instant case is siilar to Evangelista vs. Santos, /= Phil. 1/&, 9here the plaintiffs sued thedefendant in the Court of *irst Instance of Ri+al on the assuption that he 9as a resident of Pasa'Cit' because he had a house there. )pon receipt of the suons, the defendant filed a otion todisiss based on iproper venue. Ae alle"ed under oath that he 9as a resident of Iloilo Cit'.

his Court sustained the disissal of the coplaint on the "round of iproper venue, because thedefendant 9as reall' a resident of Iloilo Cit'. Ais Pasa' Cit' residence 9as used b' his children 9ho9ere stud'in" in Manila. Sae holdin" in Casilan vs. omassi!$6 Phil. &=0B Corre vs. Corre, %66Phil. 1#%BCalo vs. "islig #ndustries! #n$., 8%$&61, (anuar' 16, %$=&, %$ SCR! %&1BAdamos vs. %.M. uason! Co.! #n$.,. 8#%$0&, October %2, %$=/, #0 SCR! 0#$.

8/10/2019 Sy vs. Tyson

4/4

Se#r#*e O$o$/

ESCOL&N, J., dissentin"

It is ' vie9 that petitioners, b' filin" a otion for a bill of particulars, had subitted theselves tothe >urisdiction of the respondent court, and has thus 9aived their ob>ection to the venue of action.

DE C(STRO, J., concurrin"

I concur, because as stated in the ain opinion, the residence of the plaintiff is not alle"ed in thecoplaint. he fact of iproper venue is, therefore, not anifest on the face of the coplaint. ection to iproper venue.