Portillo v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Cesar Ramirez filed a complaint for recovery of a sum of money against petitioner Manuel F. Portillo with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint stated Ramirez's residence in Quezon City but did not specify Portillo's residence, only that he could be served at a Manila address. Procedural History: Portillo filed a motion to dismiss, averring that his domicile was in Caloocan, Rizal, and since neither he nor the plaintiff resided in Manila, the venue was improperly laid. The respondent judge denied this motion. The Petition: Portillo filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court to enjoin the respondent judge from proceeding with the case due to improper venue.
Issue(s)
Whether venue was improperly laid with the Court of First Instance of Manila. Whether the phrase "or may be found" in Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court applies to defendants who are residents of the Philippines.
Ruling
The writ of prohibition is granted, and the respondent judge is enjoined from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 44181. The complaint in said case is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the plaintiff filing another action with the proper court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether venue was improperly laid with the Court of First Instance of Manila: The Court held that venue was improperly laid. Section 1 of Rule 5 of the Rules of Court governs civil actions in Courts of First Instance and states that actions may be commenced and tried 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. However, the phrase "or may be found" has a limited application. It applies only to cases where the defendant has no residence in the Philippine Islands. In this case, Portillo averred that his domicile is in Caloocan, Rizal, making him a resident of the Philippines. Therefore, the Manila court was not the proper venue. On Whether the phrase "or may be found" in Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court applies to defendants who are residents of the Philippines: The Court clarified that the phrase "or may be found" in Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, which was taken from Section 377 of Act 190, has a limited application. It applies only to cases where the defendant has no residence in the Philippine Islands. This interpretation was established in previous cases, such as Evangelista, et al. vs. Santos and Cohen vs. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd.. For defendants who are residents of the Philippines, the terms "residence" and "found" are considered synonymous with "domicile." The Court rejected the argument that this rule does not apply when the defendant's residence is unknown to the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff still has the remedy of filing the action in his own place of residence. The regulation of venue, while primarily for the plaintiff's convenience, should not unduly deprive a resident defendant of his rights under the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
In Courts of First Instance, the phrase "or may be found" in relation to the defendant's location for venue purposes, applies only when the defendant has no residence in the Philippine Islands. For resident defendants, "residence" and "found" are synonymous with "domicile."