Title
Ang Kek Chen vs. Spouses Calasan
Case
G.R. No. 161685
Decision Date
Jul 24, 2007
A libel case filed in Aparri, Cagayan, was dismissed due to improper venue; the Calasans' actual residence was in Las Piñas, not Aparri, as per Supreme Court ruling.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 161685)

Facts:

Background of the Parties

  • Petitioner Ang Kek Chen: Resides at 1287-1291 Jose Abad Santos Avenue, Tondo, Manila. He is not a lawyer and has filed pleadings pro se (on his own behalf).
  • Respondent Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan: Born in Aparri, Cagayan, and has been a registered voter there since 1969. He owns real property in Aparri (his ancestral home) but also maintains a house and lot in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where he and his family reside. He has a business address in Manila and is a commissioned notary public in Manila.

The Dispute

  • Atty. Calasan acted as counsel for Jaime U. Lim, who was involved in a dispute with Ang Kek Chen. Chen alleged that his residence was damaged by Lim's corporation.
  • Chen wrote a letter and filed a counter-affidavit, which Atty. Calasan believed maligned him. Copies were sent to high-ranking government officials.
  • Atty. Calasan filed criminal libel cases against Chen in Aparri, Cagayan, which were dismissed.
  • Chen responded by filing administrative cases against Atty. Calasan, seeking his disbarment for alleged gross misconduct.

Civil Case for Damages

  • On December 4, 2001, Atty. Calasan and his spouse filed a civil case for damages against Chen in Aparri, Cagayan, alleging malicious imputations.
  • Chen filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing improper venue, among other grounds. The Aparri RTC dismissed the case on February 26, 2002, citing improper venue.
  • The Calasans filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially dismissed the petition but later granted their Motion for Reconsideration, reinstating the case.

Key Findings on Residence

  • The Aparri RTC found that while the Calasans were domiciled in Aparri, their actual residence was in Las Piñas due to their profession and occupation.
  • The CA initially upheld the RTC's finding but later reversed itself, ruling that the Calasans' residence in Aparri was valid for venue purposes.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, upholding the RTC's finding that the venue for the libel case was improperly laid in Aparri, Cagayan.
  2. Whether the CA erred in reversing its earlier decision and reinstating the civil case.
  3. Whether the Petition for Certiorari was a proper substitute for a lost appeal.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Aparri RTC correctly dismissed the civil case for improper venue, as the Calasans' actual residence was in Las Piñas, not Aparri. The CA's reversal was erroneous, and its initial decision upholding the RTC's dismissal was reinstated.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.