Facts:

The case involves Ang Kek Chen as the petitioner and spouses Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan and Leticia B. Calasan as the respondents. The events leading to this case began when Ang Kek Chen, residing at 1287-1291 Jose Abad Santos Avenue corner Padre Algue Street, Tondo, Manila, filed a counter-affidavit against Atty. Calasan, who was representing Jaime U. Lim, a corporation president accused of damaging Chen's residence. Atty. Calasan, a registered voter in Aparri, Cagayan, owned an ancestral home there but also maintained a residence in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where he lived with his family and operated a law office. Following the alleged defamation by Chen, Atty. Calasan filed criminal libel cases against him in Aparri, which were dismissed. In retaliation, Chen filed administrative cases against Atty. Calasan, seeking disbarment. On December 4, 2001, the Calasans filed a civil complaint for damages against Chen in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, which wa...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• Petitioner Ang Kek Chen
• Resides at 1287-1291 Jose Abad Santos Avenue corner Padre Algue Street, Tondo, 1012 Manila.
• Not a lawyer; filed pleadings in person.
• Respondent Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan
• Born in Aparri, Cagayan on September 8, 1947.
• Registered voter in Aparri, Cagayan since 1969.
• Owns an ancestral home in Aparri, Cagayan, donated by his mother.
• Also possesses a house and lot in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, where he and his family reside most of the time due to his profession and occupation.
• Maintains a business address at 10/F Manufacturers Building, Plaza Sta. Cruz, 1003 Manila.
• Received a commission as a notary public from the Manila RTC and holds a Community Tax Certificate in Las Piñas City.

Sequence of Events and Associated Cases

• Context of the dispute initiated by the petitioner
• Petitioner alleged that his residence was damaged by a corporation headed by Jaime U. Lim, an opponent linked to respondent Atty. Calasan's legal representation.
• Petitioner sent a counter-affidavit and a letter—which were seen as malignment—disseminated to various persons including high government officials.
• Respondent’s Actions
• Atty. Calasan, acting as counsel for Jaime U. Lim, filed criminal libel cases against petitioner in Aparri, Cagayan (Crim. Case Nos. 07-1168 and VI-1094), which were later dismissed.
• Petitioner, in retaliation, initiated administrative cases (Administrative Case Nos. 5444 and 6233), charging serious gross misconduct against Atty. Calasan and calling for his disbarment.
• Civil Case Initiation and Trial Court Proceedings
• On December 4, 2001, respondents (spouses Atty. Calasan and Leticia B. Calasan) filed a complaint for damages in Civil Case No. 08-418 with the Aparri, Cagayan RTC for malicious imputations against Atty. Calasan.
• Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds including lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a cause of action, non-compliance with a condition precedent, statute of limitations, and abandonment/extinguishment of claim.
• On February 26, 2002, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of improper venue, a dismissal later upheld in a Motion for Reconsideration on March 20, 2002.
• Appeal to the Court of Appeals
• Respondents elevated the matter via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 70335) on April 5, 2002, challenging the trial court’s venue determination.
• The Special Fifth Division of the CA initially dismissed the petition on August 12, 2002.
• Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration which resulted, on November 21, 2002, in the CA setting aside its earlier decision and ordering the trial court to proceed with the trial.
• Petition for Review
• Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review on March 5, 2004, challenging (a) the dismissal and (b) the subsequent reversal of the CA decision via its resolutions.
• Petitioner raised issues regarding the proper venue based on the interpretation of "residence" versus "domicile" in relation to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.

Determination of Residence and Domicile

• Trial Court Findings
• Acknowledged that respondents were registered voters and legally domiciled in Aparri, Cagayan.
• Noted that respondents maintained an additional residential house in Las Piñas where they habitually stayed due to their professional engagements.
• Concluded that while respondents' legal residence (domicile) was in Aparri, their actual residence at the time was in Las Piñas, Metro Manila.
• Findings in Related Criminal Cases
• In Criminal Case No. 07-1168, the court observed that Atty. Calasan’s presence in Aparri was occasional and not continuous despite owning a house there.
• In Criminal Case No. VI-1094, similar findings emphasized that actual residence was in Las Piñas based on the frequency of presence and professional activities.
• Appellate Considerations
• The CA initially upheld the trial court’s findings on the issue of residence for venue purposes.
• Later, in a Motion for Reconsideration, the CA reasserted that residence is an actual, continuous presence and reaffirmed the domicile of the respondents in Aparri but did not negate the distinction required for venue determination.

Issue:

Proper Interpretation of Venue Statute under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code

• Whether the term “resides” means actual residence or legal domicile.
• Whether venue should be determined based on the personal, actual (physical) residence of the offended party at the time of the commission of the offense.

Procedural and Appellate Issues

• Whether the petition for certiorari was correctly dismissed by the CA in its August 12, 2002 decision.
• Whether the subsequent CA resolutions reversing the prior decision were erroneous.
• Whether the petition for certiorari by the respondents can substitute for a lost appeal.

Application of the Venue Rule

• Determining where respondents "actually resided" in the year 2000, at the time the alleged offense was committed.
• Assessing whether the filing of the libel case in Aparri, Cagayan (based on domicile) was proper, considering evidence pointing to their actual residence in Las Piñas, Metro Manila.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)