G.R. No. 186993 - Ang vs. Spouses Ang

On September 2, 1992, spouses Alan and Em Ang (respondents) obtained a loan of US$300,000.00 from Theodore and Nancy Ang (petitioners) and executed a promissory note promising payment, with 10% annual interest, upon demand.
Despite repeated demands, respondents did not pay; by August 28, 2006, the debt, inclusive of accrued interest, amounted to US$719,671.23.

On August 6, 2006, petitioners, residing in Los Angeles, executed Special Powers of Attorney in favor of Atty. Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron to file and prosecute the collection case.
On September 15, 2006, Atty. Aceron filed a Complaint for collection of sum of money in RTC Quezon City, Branch 81 (Civil Case No. Q-06-58834).
On November 21, 2006, respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue and prescription, arguing that petitioners reside in Los Angeles and respondents in Bacolod City, making Quezon City improper under Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC denied the motion on April 12, 2007, and likewise denied reconsideration on August 27, 2007, ruling that venue lies where plaintiff’s attorney-in-fact resides.
Respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. On August 28, 2008, the CA annulled and set aside the RTC orders, dismissed the complaint for improper venue (holding the case should have been filed in Bacolod City), and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on February 20, 2009.
Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law in ruling that the collection complaint must be dismissed for improper venue under Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Court.