Case Summary (G.R. No. 111685)
Antecedent Facts
On April 10, 1992, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent in Cebu City. Instead of filing an answer, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, with the most significant being improper venue. The Regional Trial Court granted this motion on August 3, 1992, ruling that the principal place of business of the petitioner was in Davao City, not Cebu City, thus making the venue improper for the filing of the complaint in Cebu.
Trial Court's Resolution
The trial court determined that the petitioner's principal office was at "163-165 P. Reyes Street, Davao City," as evidenced by lease agreements with the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). The court cited that the choice of venue should not be arbitrary, emphasizing the importance of judicial economy and the convenience of the parties. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed based on the conclusion that the proper venue was Davao City.
Attempts to Revise Rulings
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 1, 1992. Subsequently, the petitioner initially approached the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari but was ultimately redirected to the Court of Appeals, where the case was registered as CA-G.R. SP No. 29996. On August 31, 1993, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment dismissing the petition without due course.
Grounds for Assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision
The petitioner filed a subsequent petition, arguing that the Court of Appeals had violated procedural due process by not resolving all pertinent issues, particularly the question of venue. The petitioner claimed that it had the right to file its action in Cebu City, having paid the necessary docket fees there, and contended that the respondent should not be allowed to assert estoppel based on alleged contradictory statements regarding the company's principal office.
Distinction Between Venue and Jurisdiction
The petitioner highlighted the distinction between venue and jurisdiction, emphasizing that while jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, the venue can. The courts may also allow changes to venue based on mutual agreement between parties. The private respondent asserted that the proper venue was Davao City due to prior representations made by the petitioner indicating its principal office was located there. Concerns over conflicting statements made by the petitioner were raised, with reference made to established principles regarding judicial admissions in prior cases.
Relevant Case Law
The petitioner referenced relevant jurisprudence, such as Young Auto Supply Co. v. Court of Appeals, to illustrate that a corporation's residence for venue purposes is primarily defined
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 111685)
Case Overview
- The case is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (petitioner) against the Court of Appeals and Francisco Tesorero (respondents).
- The petition was prompted by the Court of Appeals’ decision dated August 31, 1993, which denied due course to petitioner’s earlier petition and dismissed it.
- The central issue revolves around the question of improper venue concerning a complaint for damages filed by the petitioner.
Background of the Case
- On April 10, 1992, Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. initiated a complaint for damages amounting to P11,000,000.00 against Francisco Tesorero in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 11 (Civil Case No. CEB-11578).
- Tesorero filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, citing four grounds, with the most significant being the improper venue.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint on August 3, 1992, ruling that the plaintiff’s principal office is in Davao City, thus mandating that the case should have been filed there.
Trial Court Decision
- The trial court's resolution emphasized the significance of a corporation's principal place of business as its residence for venue purposes.
- It noted that the petitioner’s own representations in various contracts indicated that its principal office was located at "163-165 P. Reyes Street, Davao City."
- The court highlighted the need for judicial economy and fairness in determining venue and ruled in favor of the motion to dismiss.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- Following the dismissal by the trial court, the petitioner sought relief from the Court of