Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28398)
Facts:
Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. v. American Express International, Inc., G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. (plaintiff below) filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin City, Southern Leyte (Branch 25) against American Express International, Inc. (AMEX) and its officers Ian T. Fish and Dominic Mascrinas, alleging wrongful dishonor, suspension and eventual cancellation of his principal and supplementary AMEX credit cards and claiming actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The case was raffled to Branch 25.Respondents denied the material allegations and interposed affirmative defenses, including improper venue. They pointed to petitioner’s community tax certificate (CTC) issued in Pasay City and his Pasay law office as evidence that venue in Southern Leyte was improper. Petitioner, replying, invoked his status as the incumbent congressman of the lone district of Southern Leyte and asked the RTC to take judicial notice of his residency there.
In an Order dated September 10, 2001 the RTC denied respondents’ affirmative defenses and held that petitioner’s allegation of residence in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte — as an incumbent congressman — sufficed to establish venue. The RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration in an Order dated January 2, 2002. Respondents then petitioned the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition alleging grave abuse of discretion; upon posting bond the CA issued a temporary restraining order on March 14, 2002 enjoining further proceedings.
On May 22, 2003 the Court of Appeals (Special Fourth Division; decision penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao) granted respondents’ petition, held venue was improperly laid because, in the CA’s view, none of the parties — including petitioner — actually resided in Southern Leyte, and vacated and set aside the RTC’s September 10, 2001 and January 2, 2002 Orders, enjoining the RTC from further proceedings except to dismiss the complaint (the CA converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction conditioned on a P5,000,000 bond). The CA relied on the distinction between “residence” and “domicile” in Koh v. Court of Appeals and noted the Pasay-issued CTC and petitioner’s Pasay law office as judicial admissions. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 14, 2003.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certior...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was venue in the RTC of Maasin City improperly laid because petitioner Saludo was not a resident of Southern Leyte at the time he filed the complaint?
- Was petitioner Saludo’s petition for review properly verified under Section 4, Rule 7 of th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)