Case Summary (G.R. No. 159507)
Factual Background
Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. filed a complaint for damages in the RTC of Maasin City against American Express International, Inc. and two of its officers alleging wrongful dishonor and later cancellation of his AMEX principal card and a supplementary card issued to his daughter. The complaint traced the first dishonor to payments made in the United States by the supplementary cardholder in April 2000 and the second to a payment at the Hotel Okawa in Tokyo while petitioner attended an official event. Petitioner alleged respondents suspended and later canceled his account for alleged nonpayment, denied receipt of statements, and wrongfully imposed late charges, causing him actual, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Pleadings and Affirmative Defenses
Respondents interposed an answer denying the material allegations and asserted affirmative defenses including lack of cause of action and improper venue. They maintained that none of the parties resided in Southern Leyte and relied on petitioner’s community tax certificate indicating Pasay City and the fact that the complaint was prepared and signed in Pasay City to support their contention that venue was improperly laid in Maasin.
Trial Court Proceedings
The trial court, Branch 25, RTC Maasin City, denied respondents’ affirmative defenses in an Order dated September 10, 2001 and again in an Order dated January 2, 2002 denying reconsideration. The court found the complaint sufficient to state a cause of action and accepted petitioner’s allegation that he was a resident of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte. The court took judicial notice of petitioner’s status as the incumbent congressman of the lone district of Southern Leyte and held that such status and the residency requirement for that office dispelled doubts about his residence in the province.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying the affirmative defense of improper venue. The appellate court issued a temporary restraining order on March 14, 2002 enjoining further proceedings. In its Decision of May 22, 2003 the Court of Appeals granted the petition, concluded venue was improperly laid because none of the parties resided in Southern Leyte, and held that petitioner was actually residing in Pasay City as shown by his community tax certificate and law office. The appellate court vacated the RTC orders, converted the TRO into a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on a P5,000,000 bond, and instructed that the RTC may only dismiss the complaint.
Parties’ Contentions before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred by refusing to take judicial notice of the undisputed fact that he was the incumbent congressman and therefore a resident of Southern Leyte; that the appellate court wrongly treated the community tax certificate and associated facts as judicial admissions; that the appellate court disregarded relevant Supreme Court precedents; and that it improperly speculated about petitioner’s motive in choosing venue.
Issue Presented
The dispositive issue presented for resolution was whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that venue was improperly laid in the RTC of Maasin City because none of the parties, including petitioner as plaintiff, was a resident of Southern Leyte at the time of filing.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari. It reversed and set aside the Decision dated May 22, 2003 and the Resolution dated August 14, 2003 of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the RTC Orders dated September 10, 2001 and January 2, 2002 in Civil Case No. R-3172. The Court found that venue was properly laid in Maasin City.
Legal Reasoning on the Meaning of “Resides”
The Court reiterated that personal actions are governed by Section 2, Rule 4 and that the plaintiff’s election of venue is regulated by the Rules of Court. It restated long-standing doctrine distinguishing residence from domicile, relying on Koh v. Court of Appeals and Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. Sarmiento, and observed that for purposes of venue the term “resides” connotes actual, physical habitation or place of abode and not technical domicile. The Court explained that where a plaintiff is domiciled in a place for election law purposes, the more exacting conception of residence for that purpose includes personal presence and conduct indicative of intent to remain, and that a domicile entails residence coupled with the intention to remain.
Application of Law to the Facts
The Court found that petitioner’s status as the duly elected representative of the lone district of Southern Leyte at the time of filing was admitted and that, as a matter of law, one seeking or holding that office must have the residence qualification of the district. Consequently, petitioner was properly deemed to have residence in Southern Leyte for venue purposes. The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in elevating petitioner’s community tax certificate and the location of his law office into conclusive proof that he resided only in Pasay City. The Court emphasized that a person may have multiple residences and that a community tax certificate is not determinative of residence for venue.
Judicial Notice and the Trial Court’s Finding
The Supreme Court upheld the tria
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159507)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. was the petitioner who filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Maasin City, Southern Leyte, Branch 25.
- American Express International, Inc. and/or Ian T. Fish and Dominic Mascrinas were the respondents in the civil action.
- The Court of Appeals granted respondents’ petition for certiorari and prohibition and directed the RTC judge to desist from further proceedings except to dismiss the complaint.
- The petition before the Supreme Court sought reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 22, 2003 and its Resolution dated August 14, 2003 and sought reinstatement of the RTC Orders dated September 10, 2001 and January 2, 2002.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioner Saludo alleged wrongful dishonor of his AMEX credit card and a supplementary card used by his daughter in separate transactions in April 2000 and during a stay in Tokyo, Japan.
- Petitioner alleged respondents unilaterally suspended his account for nonpayment covering March 2000, that he did not receive the statement of account, that he was improperly charged for late payment in June 2000, and that his cards were canceled on July 20, 2000.
- Petitioner Saludo alleged he suffered great inconvenience, wounded feelings, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and damage to political and professional standing and prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
- Respondents denied the allegations and pleaded, inter alia, lack of cause of action and improper venue.
Venue Contentions
- Respondents argued venue was improperly laid in Southern Leyte because no party was a resident of that province and relied on the fact that petitioner’s community tax certificate was issued in Pasay City and that petitioner’s complaint was prepared and signed in Pasay City.
- Petitioner Saludo asserted that he was then the incumbent congressman and resident of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte and urged the RTC to take judicial notice of his residency as a qualification for office.
- The court a quo ruled that petitioner’s incumbency and residency in Southern Leyte could be judicially noticed and denied respondents’ affirmative defense of improper venue.
Procedural History
- The RTC denied respondents’ affirmative defenses in its Order dated September 10, 2001 and denied reconsideration in its Order dated January 2, 2002.
- Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse, and the appellate court issued a temporary restraining order on March 14, 2002 enjoining further proceedings.
- On May 22, 2003 the Court of Appeals held that venue was improperly laid, vacated the RTC orders, enjoined further proceedings except to dismiss, and converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction subject to posting of a P5,000,000 bond.
- The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated August 14, 2003.
Issue Presented
- The sole substantive issue was whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that venue was improp