August 20, 2001
Davao Light & Power Co., Inc., petitioner
The Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Rodolfo M. Bellaflor of Branch 11 RTC Cebu, and Francisco Tesorero, respondents
FACTS:
On April 10, 1992, Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. filed a complaint for damages against Francisco Tesorero before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 11. The complaint prayed for damages in the amount of P11M.
In lieu of an answer, Tesorero filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that: (a) the complaint did not state a cause of action; (b) Davao Light's claim has been extinguished or otherwise rendered moot and academic; (c) there was non-joinder of indispensable parties; and (d) venue was improperly laid. Of these four (4) grounds, the last mentioned is most material in the case at bar.
On August 3, 1992, the RTC issued a Resolution dismissing Davao Light's complaint against Tesorero on the ground of improper venue. The court ruled that because Davao Light indicated in its previous contracts with NAPOCOR that its principal office was in Davao City, it was therefore barred from claiming that its principal office was in Banilad, Cebu City. As such, the complaint should have been filed in Davao City.
CA affirmed RTC's ruling. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Petition granted. CA ruling reversed.
Whether Davao Light's filing of a personal action for damages against Tesorero before the Cebu City RTC was proper. – YES.
While it is true that Davao Light made representations in its previous contracts with NAPOCOR that its principal office was in Davao City, the same does not estop it from filing a personal action against Tesorero in Cebu City.
For one, pursuant to Rule 4, section 2 of the Rules of Court, personal actions may be commenced and tied where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides. In the present case, Davao Light has Cebu City as its principal office in its amended articles of incorporation. For practical purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is located as stated in its articles of incorporation. This being so, Davao Light is not precluded from filing a personal action in Cebu City.
And second, Tesorero was a complete stranger to the contracts executed between Davao Light and NAPOCOR. There was no showing that he was a party to any of those contracts or that he relied on such representation by Davao Light. Therefore, Tesorero cannot use these contracts as evidence to bolster his claim of improper venue.
DOCTRINE:
In Regional Trial Courts, all personal actions are commenced and tried in the province or city where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
