Case Digest (G.R. No. 45815)
Facts:
On September 2, 1992, Spouses Alan and Em Ang (Respondents) obtained a loan of US$300,000 from Theodore and Nancy Ang (Petitioners) and executed a promissory note with ten percent annual interest payable on demand; after repeated demands the petitioners sent a demand letter on August 28, 2006 claiming an outstanding balance of US$719,671.23. The petitioners, then resident in Los Angeles, executed Special Powers of Attorney in favor of Attorney Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron, who filed a complaint for collection in the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City on September 15, 2006; the RTC denied the respondents' motions to dismiss for improper venue in Orders of April 12 and August 27, 2007. The Court of Appeals annulled the RTC orders and dismissed the complaint on August 28, 2008, holding that the petitioners, being nonresidents of the Philippines, could not elect venue and that the residence of the attorney‑in‑fact was immaterial; the petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Case Digest (G.R. No. 45815)
Facts:
- Parties and instrumentary background
- Theodore and Nancy Ang, represented by Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron, are the petitioners.
- Spouses Alan and Em Ang are the respondents.
- On September 2, 1992, the respondents obtained a loan of US$300,000.00 from the petitioners and executed a promissory note promising payment with interest at ten percent per annum, payable on demand.
- Acceleration, demand and amount claimed
- The respondents failed to pay despite repeated demands.
- On August 28, 2006, the petitioners sent a demand letter stating the outstanding obligation had accumulated to US$719,671.23, inclusive of ten percent annual interest.
- Appointment of attorney-in-fact and filing of suit
- On August 6, 2006, while residing in Los Angeles, California, USA, the petitioners executed Special Powers of Attorney in favor of Atty. Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron for the purpose of filing suit.
- On September 15, 2006, Atty. Aceron filed a Complaint for collection of sum of money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 81, as counsel/attorney-in-fact for the petitioners.
- Respondents' motion to dismiss and asserted grounds
- On November 21, 2006, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue and prescription.
- The respondents contended that venue under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court must be laid in the court of the place where either the plaintiffs or the defendants reside; the petitioners reside in Los Angeles, the respondents in Bacolod City; thus, filing in Quezon City was improper despite the Special Power of Attorney.
- RTC rulings denying dismissal
- On April 12, 2007, the RTC issued an Order denying the respondents' motion to dismiss, reasoning that the Special Power of Attorney showed Atty. Aceron as attorney-in-fact with an address in Quezon City and that, per Section 2, Rule 4 (1997 Rules), venue may lie where the plaintiff (or the plaintiff’s representative) resides.
- The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration arguing no law permits using the residence of a plaintiffs representative to determine venue; the RTC denied reconsideration in its August 27, 2007 Order.
- Petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals and CA disposition
- The respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101159, asserting the complaint should have been filed in Bacolod City and that the residence of the plaintiffs attorney-in-fact is irrelevant to venue determination.
- On August 28, 2008, the CA annulled and set aside the RTC Orders o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Framing of the sole issue on appeal
- WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)