Title
Young Auto Supply Co. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 104175
Decision Date
Jun 25, 1993
YASCO sued Roxas for unpaid shares in CMDC. Venue dispute arose; Supreme Court ruled Cebu City proper, reinstating RTC's order.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-39272)

Petitioner

Young Auto Supply Co., Inc. and Nemesio Garcia

Respondent

George C. Roxas and the Honorable Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division)

Key Dates

  • October 28, 1987: Execution of Deed of Sale transferring CMDC shares to Roxas for ₱8,000,000
  • June 10, 1988: Filing of complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Cebu City
  • February 8, 1991: RTC Order denying Roxas’s motion to dismiss
  • June 25, 1993: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • Rule 4, Section 2(b), Revised Rules of Court (venue for personal actions)
  • Corporation Code, Section 14(3) (designation of principal office)
  • Jurisprudence: Cohen v. Benquet Commercial Co.; Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon

Facts

On October 28, 1987, YASCO, represented by Nemesio Garcia, Nelson Garcia, and Vicente Sy, sold all CMDC shares to Roxas for ₱8,000,000—₱4,000,000 as downpayment and ₱4,000,000 by four post-dated checks of ₱1,000,000 each. YASCO retained the stock certificates as security. While the downpayment was honored, the balance checks were dishonored. Roxas then sold one CMDC market; YASCO recovered ₱600,000 from the proceeds, leaving ₱3,400,000 unpaid. Nelson Garcia and Vicente Sy assigned their rights in this recovery to Nemesio Garcia.

Procedural History

  1. June 10, 1988: YASCO and Garcia filed in RTC Cebu City a complaint for collection of ₱3,400,000 or, alternatively, turnover of markets, forfeiture of ₱4,600,000 partial payment, plus fees and costs.
  2. Roxas sought several extensions to file an answer; he was twice declared in default and twice relieved.
  3. August 22, 1988: Roxas filed a motion to dismiss, alleging non-joinder of indispensable parties, waiver or extinguishment of the claim, and improper venue.
  4. February 8, 1991: RTC denied the motion to dismiss after hearing testimony and evidence. Roxas’s reconsideration motion was denied, and he defaulted again.
  5. Roxas petitioned the Court of Appeals, which affirmed on the joinder and waiver issues but dismissed the complaint for improper venue (Pasay City rather than Cebu City). Reconsideration was denied.
  6. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on grounds of improper venue and failing to recognize estoppel.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals decision, and reinstated the RTC’s February 8, 1991 order.

Legal Analysis

Rule 4, Section 2(b) of the Revised Rules of Court permits personal actions to be filed where any plaintiff resides. YASCO’s articles of incorporation, per Corporation Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.