Pantranco v. Yatco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Elpidio O. Dizon boarded Pantranco bus No. 635 as a paying passenger. While en route to Dagupan City, the bus collided with a La Mallorca-Pambusco truck in Apalit, Pampanga, causing serious physical injuries to Dizon and four other passengers, and resulting in the death of one passenger. Dizon demanded damages from Pantranco, but upon refusal, filed a complaint for recovery of damages. Procedural History: Dizon filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 7237-Q) against Pantranco in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Pantranco filed an answer with a counterclaim and a third-party complaint against La Mallorca-Pambusco and its driver. Dizon alleged in his complaint that he was a resident of Quezon City. However, during the hearing, Dizon testified he was a resident of Dagupan City, merely vacationing in Quezon City. Pantranco moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue, which was denied by the respondent judge. Pantranco then presented its evidence but before completion, filed the present action for prohibition. The Petition: Petitioner Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (Pantranco) filed an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking to restrain the respondent judge from proceeding with the hearing of Civil Case No. 7237-Q. Pantranco's theory was that venue had been improperly laid in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, as Dizon's testimony indicated his residence was Dagupan City, not Quezon City.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's objection to venue was waived by its failure to raise it before filing an answer and by its subsequent acts of filing a counterclaim and a third-party complaint.
Ruling
The petition is untenable and is hereby dismissed. The writ of prohibition prayed for is denied, and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved. Costs against Pantranco.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition was untenable because the objection to venue was waived. Under the Rules of Court, an objection to venue is a personal privilege that must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, specifically before the filing of the answer. In this case, Pantranco did not challenge the venue in a motion to dismiss before filing its responsive pleading; instead, it filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages. By filing a counterclaim and later a third-party complaint against La Mallorca-Pambusco, Pantranco sought affirmative relief from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which necessarily implied a submission to that court's jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that such procedural steps constitute a clear waiver of any right to object to venue on the ground of it being improperly laid. Furthermore, the fact that Pantranco continued to present its own evidence after the denial of its motion to dismiss reinforces the conclusion of waiver. Consequently, the lower court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in continuing the proceedings despite the discrepancy in the respondent's residence.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that a party waives its right to object to improper venue when it actively participates in the proceedings before the court. This waiver can be demonstrated through actions such as filing a counterclaim, a third-party complaint, or by presenting evidence after a motion to dismiss based on improper venue has been denied. Such actions are construed as a submission to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby negating any subsequent objections to venue.