Case Summary (G.R. No. 159507)
Key Dates
• April 2000 – First and second wrongful‐dishonor incidents of Saludo’s credit cards
• July 20, 2000 – Cancellation of petitioner’s AMEX account
• September 10, 2001 & January 2, 2002 – RTC orders denying respondents’ affirmative defenses, including improper venue
• May 22, 2003 – CA decision granting certiorari, holding venue improperly laid and enjoining further proceedings
• August 14, 2003 – CA resolution denying Saludo’s motion for reconsideration
• April 19, 2006 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 6 (residency requirement for Members of the House)
• Rules of Court, Rule 4, Section 2 (venue of personal actions)
• Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), Section 160 (community tax certificate)
• Rules of Court, Rule 7, Section 4 (verification of pleadings)
• Rules of Court, Rule 129, Sections 1–2 (judicial notice)
Factual and Procedural Background
Saludo sued AMEX and its officers before the RTC of Maasin City for damages arising from two occasions when his principal and his daughter’s supplementary credit cards were dishonored abroad. He alleged residence in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte. Respondents denied liability, raised lack of cause of action, and asserted improper venue, arguing that no party resided in Southern Leyte. They pointed to Saludo’s community tax certificate (CTC) and law office in Pasay City as proof of his residency there. The RTC denied respondents’ motions and held Saludo’s status as a congressman established his residence in Southern Leyte. The CA granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, ruled venue improper, and enjoined further RTC proceedings except to dismiss the case.
Issue
Whether venue was improperly laid in the RTC of Maasin City because petitioner Saludo was not a resident of Southern Leyte at the time he filed his complaint.
Supreme Court Analysis
Venue Rule for Personal Actions
– Under Rule 4, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, a personal action “may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff … resides … at the election of the plaintiff.” The choice lies with the plaintiff but is confined to the place where he actually resides.Meaning of “Resides”
– “Resides” for venue purposes means a party’s actual, physical habitation or place of abode, whether permanent or temporary. It differs from “domicile,” which denotes a permanent home with intent to remain indefinitely.Residency in Election Law vs. Venue
– For election law under the 1987 Constitution, residency is synonymous with domicile. To qualify as a district’s representative, Saludo must have had both physical presence and intent to remain in Southern Leyte.
– Having satisfied the constitutional residency requirement for election and having personal presence and conduct indicative of residence in Southern Leyte, Saludo necessarily had his abode there for purposes of venue.Community Tax Certificate and Law Office Location
– The CA’s reliance on Saludo’s CTC issued in Pasay City and the location of his law office was insufficient to overcome his established residence in Southern Leyte. A person may have multiple residences; one CTC does not negate another abode.Judicia
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159507)
Factual and Procedural Antecedents
- Petitioner Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr., a Filipino citizen, member of the House of Representatives and alleged resident of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte, filed a complaint for damages (Civil Case No. R-3172) with 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.
- The complaint alleged wrongful dishonor of petitioner’s principal and supplementary AMEX credit cards on two occasions: in April 2000 (supplementary card used in the U.S.) and later at Hotel Okawa in Tokyo, Japan, during a Congressional Recognition event.
- Petitioner denied receipt of account statements, contended unjustified suspension and cancellation of his account, and claimed actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees for alleged gross bad faith, mental anguish, and injury to reputation.
- Respondents filed an answer denying all allegations and raised affirmative defenses of lack of cause of action and improper venue, asserting none of the parties resided in Southern Leyte and pointing to petitioner’s community tax certificate and law office in Pasay City as proof.
- Respondents moved for preliminary hearing on venue; petitioner opposed, asserted legislative position and residency in Southern Leyte, and urged the court to take judicial notice of his incumbency and domicile.
- RTC, in its Order of September 10, 2001, denied respondents’ affirmative defenses, holding petitioner’s status as incumbent congressman was sufficient proof of residence in Southern Leyte; on January 2, 2002, it denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration.
- Respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiora