G.R. No. 145022 - Nocum vs. Tan

On September 27, 1998, Lucio Tan filed Civil Case No. 98-2288 before the RTC of Makati (Branch 56) against Armand Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, the Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines, Inc. (ALPAP), and The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., seeking moral and exemplary damages for alleged malicious and defamatory imputations in two published articles.
The original complaint failed to allege (a) the residence of Lucio Tan at the time of the alleged defamation and (b) the place where the libelous articles were first printed and published.

On October 27, 1998, Nocum and the Inquirer filed their joint answer, asserting: (a) failure to state a cause of action; (b) alleged defamatory statements were mere conclusions; (c) qualified privilege as a fair and true report on a matter of public interest; and (d) absence of malice in view of publication of the plaintiff’s side.
On October 31, 1998, Umali and ALPAP filed their joint answer, contending: (a) no cause of action; (b) improper venue; and (c) Lucio Tan was not a real party in interest.
On February 10, 1999, the RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice for improper venue, the defect being failure to plead the place of publication and the complainant’s residence.

On February 24, 1999, Lucio Tan filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and tendered an amended complaint alleging that the article and caricature were printed and first published in Makati City.
The RTC admitted the amended complaint, deeming the amendment formal under Rule 10, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and set aside its earlier dismissal.
Petitioners and co-defendants Umali/ALPAP appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA); two petitions were consolidated.
On April 19, 2000, the CA denied the consolidated petitions and affirmed the RTC’s order; motions for reconsideration were denied on September 15, 2000.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s affirmation on jurisdiction and the admissibility of the amended complaint.

Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the civil libel action upon filing of the original complaint despite its dismissal for improper venue.
Whether the RTC properly admitted the amended complaint under Rule 10 despite the prior dismissal and alleged divestment of jurisdiction.