G.R. No. L-56763 - Sy vs. Tyson Enterprises, Inc.

On August 29, 1979, Tyson Enterprises, Inc. filed a collection suit in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch XXI against John Sy and Universal Parts Supply Corporation for the recovery of P288,534.58 plus interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses (Civil Case No. 34302).
The complaint alleged that John Sy, doing business as Universal Parts Supply, is a resident of Fuentebella Subdivision, Bacolod City, and that Universal Parts Supply Corporation, which is allegedly controlled by Sy, also does business in Bacolod City.

Despite Tyson Enterprises, Inc. being an active business in Manila (located at 1024 Magdalena, later G. Masangkay Street, Binondo), the complaint did not mention the firm’s office or place of business.
Instead, the filing only provided the postal address of Dominador Ti, the president and general manager of Tyson Enterprises, Inc. (26 Xavier Street, Greenhills Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal), suggesting a deliberate attempt to justify filing in Pasig, Rizal rather than in Manila.

The defendants initially filed a motion for extension of time to file their answer, followed by a motion for a bill of particulars, which was denied by the trial court.
Subsequently, they filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, invoking Section 2(b), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, which allows personal actions to be commenced and tried where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff resides, at the plaintiff’s election.
To strengthen their argument, the defendants also cited a stipulation in the sales invoice that designated the Courts of Manila as the proper forum for any dispute, as reflected in paragraph 4 of plaintiff’s complaint.

The plaintiff contended that by filing a motion for a bill of particulars, the defendants had waived any objection to the improper venue.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss based on the waiver argument, a decision that was later challenged through a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals.
Despite a restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals against the respondent judge, the trial court proceeded; eventually, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, asserting that the parties had not intended Manila as the exclusive venue and that dismissing the case would serve no useful purpose since it was filed in Pasig, near Manila.

It was clear that the proper venue was not Pasig but Manila, as the actual place of business or residence for Tyson Enterprises, Inc. is in Manila (for venue purposes, the place of business is considered its residence).
Additionally, the fact that the address of the plaintiff’s president was used does not convert that address into the residence of the corporation.
The collection suit should have been filed either in Manila (the residence of the plaintiff corporation as designated in the sales invoice) or in Bacolod City (the residence of defendant Sy).

Whether the venue for filing the collection suit was proper considering that Tyson Enterprises, Inc.’s actual place of business, and thereby its residence for venue purposes, is in Manila rather than in Rizal.
Whether the court could consider the filing of a motion for a bill of particulars by the defendants as constituting a waiver of their objection to improper venue.

If the defendants’ earlier filing of a motion for a bill of particulars amounts to submission to the court’s jurisdiction, thereby waiving the objection to the venue.
Whether the rules on venue, as specified in Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, require that the objection be raised by a motion to dismiss and that other acts do not automatically imply waiver.

Whether the address provided for the plaintiff in the complaint (i.e., that of its president) can be properly construed as the residence of the corporation for the purposes of determining venue.