Ocampo v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Miguel Ocampo was ordered by the City Court of Davao City in Civil Case No. 901-A for illegal detainer to vacate leased property in Quezon City and pay unpaid rentals. Petitioner alleged he was not served summons, complaint, or decision, and that venue was improperly laid. Procedural History: The City Court of Davao City rendered a final judgment on January 14, 1967, ordering petitioner to vacate the leased property and pay rentals. Petitioner claimed surprise and lack of due process. The Petition: Petitioner filed an original action for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of the writ of execution issued by the Davao City court, alleging lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion due to improper venue and lack of notice. A restraining order was issued.
Issue(s)
Whether the City Court of Davao City acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering judgment and issuing a writ of execution. Whether venue was improperly laid in Davao City for an illegal detainer case involving property in Quezon City. Whether petitioner waived his right to question the venue.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The restraining order is dissolved, and enforcement of the writ of execution may proceed. Petitioner and his counsel are ordered to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt and disciplinary action, respectively.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 & 2 (Jurisdiction and Venue): The Court held that while Rule 4, Section 1 generally mandates that forcible entry and detainer actions be brought in the municipality or city where the property is situated, venue may be waived expressly or impliedly. Petitioner's claim of lack of jurisdiction due to improper venue was belied by his actions. He was personally served with summons and a copy of the complaint by the Quezon City sheriff, filed an answer to the complaint, and participated in the proceedings by pleading that he had not intentionally failed to pay rent. Furthermore, the lease agreement expressly stipulated that venue in case of litigation shall be in Davao City. The Court noted that petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, and a decision was rendered against him after reception of respondent's evidence. Copy of the decision was duly served on him. On Issue 3 (Waiver and Estoppel): The Court found that petitioner's actions constituted a waiver of the venue. He failed to challenge the venue timely through a motion to dismiss as provided by Rule 4, Section 4. Instead, he participated in the proceedings by filing an answer and pleading on the merits. Moreover, when the writ of execution was served, petitioner requested deferment until June 10, 1967, promising to vacate and pay rentals, which he wrote on the writ itself. This conduct, the Court ruled, estopped him from belatedly challenging the venue, as he could not adopt a posture of double-dealing without running afoul of the doctrine of estoppel. The Court cited People vs. Arcilla and Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals in support of this principle. On the Nature of the Petition: The Court characterized the petition as a sham, noting that petitioner flagrantly misled the Court into issuing a restraining order based on false representations that he had not been summoned and was unaware of the judgment. The Court emphasized the grave consequences of such contumacious acts and the potential criminal liability for willful falsehood. The Court also admonished petitioner's counsel for failing to uphold his responsibility as an officer of the court to ensure truthful allegations and for not rectifying the false claims upon receiving the respondent's documented answer. The Court condemned such deceptive tactics that delay the execution of lawful verdicts and waste judicial time.
Main Doctrine
Venue, in inferior courts as well as in the courts of first instance, may be waived expressly or impliedly. Failure to challenge venue timely constitutes waiver, and a party is estopped from belatedly challenging it after participating in the proceedings or undertaking actions inconsistent with such challenge.