|
UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- ALBERT LIM, doing business under the
name and style “New H-R
Grocery,” Respondent. |
G.R. No. 154338 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Resolutions dated
The present controversy stemmed from a
contract of sale between
Universal Robina Corporation, petitioner, and Albert Lim,
respondent. Pursuant to the contract, petitioner
sold to respondent grocery products in
the total amount of P808,059.88. After tendering
partial payments, respondent refused to settle his obligation despite petitioner’s
repeated demands.
Thus, on
On
The case is
misplaced with respect to jurisdiction and venue. There is not even a remote connection by the
parties to
Wherefore, premises
considered, this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for improper venue
and for lack of jurisdiction.[2]
Accordingly,
petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration together with an amended complaint
alleging that the parties agreed that the proper venue for any dispute relative
to the transaction is
In an
Order dated
On
However, on
It appears that there is no connection whatsoever between
WHEREFORE, premises considered, venue is hereby declared to have been
improperly laid. This case is hereby
dismissed without prejudice to filing in the proper venue.[5]
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the trial court in its Resolution
dated
Petitioner
then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review. But it was dismissed due to petitioner’s
failure to attach thereto an explanation why
copies of the petition were not served by personal service but by
registered mail, in violation of Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended.[7] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but
it was likewise denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated
After a careful assessment of the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated
Moreover, Supreme Court Circular No.
1-88 and Administrative Circular No. 3-96, provide that subsequent compliance
with the requirements of a petition for review/certiorari shall not
warrant reconsideration of the order of dismissal unless the court is fully
satisfied that the non-compliance with the said requirements was not in any way
attributable to the party, despite due negligence on his part, and that there
are highly justifiable and compelling reasons for the court to make such other
disposition as it may deem just and equitable.
We find such reasons wanting in the
present case.
Besides, after a restudy of the
facts, law and jurisprudence, as well as the dispositions already contained in
the assailed Resolutions of public respondent, we find the present petition
for certiorari to be patently without merit, and the questions raised
therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
WHEREFORE, the motion for
reconsideration is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit.[8]
Hence, this petition.
The
fundamental issue being raised is whether the trial court may dismiss motu proprio petitioner’s complaint on
the ground of improper venue.
Sections 2 and 4, Rule 4 of the same
Rules provide:
Sec.
2. Venue of personal actions. – All
other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be
found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Sec. 4.
When Rule not applicable. – This Rule shall not apply –
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law
provides otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in
writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.
Clearly, in personal actions, the
plaintiff may commence an action either in the place of his or her residence or
the place where the defendant resides. However, the parties may agree to a
specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them resides.
Corollarily, Section 1, Rule 9 of the same
Rules provides for the instances when the trial court may motu proprio
dismiss a claim, thus:
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. –
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter,
that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause,
or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations,
the court shall dismiss the claim.
Implicit
from the above provision is that improper venue not impleaded in the motion to
dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived. Thus, a court may not dismiss an action motu
proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the grounds wherein
the court may dismiss an action motu
proprio on the basis of the pleadings.
In Dacoycoy v. Intermediate
Appellate Court,[9]
this Court held that a trial court may not motu proprio dismiss a
complaint on the ground of improper venue, thus:
Dismissing the complaint on the
ground of improper venue is certainly not the appropriate course of action at
this stage of the proceedings, particularly as venue, in inferior courts as
well as in the courts of first instance (now RTC), may be waived expressly or
impliedly. Where the defendant fails to
challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by Section 4 of
Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be held and a decision to
be rendered, he cannot on appeal or in a special action be permitted to
belatedly challenge the wrong venue, which is deemed waived.
Indeed, it was grossly erroneous for
the trial court to have taken a procedural short-cut by dismissing motu
proprio the complaint on the ground of improper venue without first
allowing the procedure outlined in the rules of court to take its proper
course. Although we are for the speedy
and expeditious resolution of cases, justice and fairness take primary
importance. The ends of justice require
that respondent trial court faithfully adhere to the rules of procedure to
afford not only the defendant, but the plaintiff as well, the right to be heard
on his cause.
In Rudolf Lietz Holdings Inc. v.
Registry of Deeds of Parañaque,[10]
the Court likewise held that a trial court may not motu proprio dismiss
a complaint on the ground of improper venue, thus:
Rule 9, Section 1
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that defenses and objections not
pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. The court may only dismiss an action motu
proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis
pendentia, res judicata and prescription.
Therefore, the trial court in this case erred when it dismissed the
petition motu proprio. It should
have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading from respondent,
raising the objection or affirmative defense of improper venue, before
dismissing the petition.
In the instant case, respondent,
despite proper service of summons, failed to file an answer and was thus
declared in default by the trial court.
Verily, having been declared in default, he lost his standing in court
and his right to adduce evidence and present his defense,[11]
including his right to question the propriety of the venue of the action.
WHEREFORE,
the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 67368 are REVERSED.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 227,
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 63.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] G.R. No. 74854,
[10] 398 Phil. 626 (2000).
[11] Rural
Bank of Sta. Catalina v. Land Bank of the