Case Digest (G.R. No. 145022)
Facts:
Armand Nocum and The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. v. Lucio Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005, the Supreme Court Second Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner journalists Armand Nocum and The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc. (petitioners) challenged the Court of Appeals decision of April 19, 2000 and its September 15, 2000 resolution denying reconsideration, which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 56, order of April 19, 1999 admitting respondent Lucio Tan’s amended complaint for damages in Civil Case No. 98-2288.
On September 27, 1998, Lucio Tan filed a civil complaint in the RTC of Makati (Civil Case No. 98-2288) for damages for alleged malicious and defamatory imputations appearing in a Philippine Daily Inquirer news article and a caricature. Defendants named included Armand Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines, Inc. (ALPAP), and the Inquirer. The Inquirer and Nocum filed an answer asserting failure to state a cause of action, that the statements were mere conclusions without factual premises, that the report was a privileged fair and true report on matters of public interest, and that publication of the other side negated malice. ALPAP and Umali filed a separate answer asserting lack of cause of action, improper venue, and that Tan was not a real party in interest, noting the complaint omitted the complainant’s residence and the place of first publication.
The RTC dismissed the original complaint on February 10, 1999 for improper venue. Respondent Tan filed an Omnibus Motion dated February 24, 1999 seeking reconsideration and tendered an amended complaint alleging specifically that the article and caricature were printed and first published in the City of Makati. The RTC admitted the amended complaint under Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, set aside its dismissal and held the amendment was merely formal.
Petitioners and co-defendants Umali and ALPAP brought petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (consolidated as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 54894 and 55192). On April 19, 2000 the Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s order; a motion for reconsideration was denied on September 15, 2000. Petitioners then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. The Court required respondent to comment and received memoranda after ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court of Makati acquire jurisdiction over the civil action upon the filing of respondent Lucio Tan’s original complaint?
- Was the trial court’s admission of the amended complaint proper, or did the amendment improperly confer jurisdiction on a court that had been div...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)