Sy v. Tyson Enterprises, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Tyson Enterprises, Inc. filed a collection suit against John Sy and Universal Parts Supply Corporation for P288,534.58 plus interest, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The complaint alleged that John Sy, doing business as Universal Parts Supply, resided in Bacolod City, and that Universal Parts Supply Corporation, allegedly controlled by Sy, also conducted business there. Tyson Enterprises, Inc. itself was doing business in Manila, but its president's residence in San Juan, Rizal, was cited to justify filing the suit in Pasig, Rizal. 2. Procedural History: The defendants, Sy and Universal Parts Supply Corporation, initially filed motions for an extension of time to answer and for a bill of particulars, which was denied. They then moved to dismiss the case based on improper venue, citing both the Rules of Court and a stipulation in the sales invoice submitting parties to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Manila. The trial court denied this motion, ruling that the defendants had waived their objection to venue by filing the motion for a bill of particulars. This denial was challenged via a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals, which issued a restraining order that the trial judge disregarded. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that the parties did not intend Manila as the exclusive venue and that dismissing the case would serve no useful purpose. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, John Sy and Universal Parts Supply Corporation, sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision. They argued that the venue was improperly laid, as the collection suit should have been filed in Manila, the residence of the plaintiff corporation, or potentially in Bacolod City, the residence of the defendants. They contended that filing a motion for a bill of particulars did not constitute a waiver of their objection to improper venue, as this objection was raised in a timely motion to dismiss before filing an answer. The Supreme Court was asked to grant a writ of prohibition to restrain the trial court from proceeding with the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a motion for a bill of particulars constitutes a waiver of the objection to improper venue. Whether the venue was properly laid in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch XXI.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the respondent judge denying the motion to dismiss. The writ of prohibition was granted, and Civil Case No. 34302 was ordered dismissed without prejudice to refiling it in the Court of First Instance of Manila or Bacolod City. All proceedings in the case were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of objection to improper venue: The Court held that the filing of a motion for a bill of particulars before filing a motion to dismiss based on improper venue does not constitute a waiver of the objection to venue. Section 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides that improper venue is waived only if not objected to in a motion to dismiss seasonably filed. The petitioners seasonably filed their motion to dismiss after their motion for a bill of particulars was denied. The Court clarified that the provision in the old Code of Civil Procedure regarding waiver upon entering an appearance is no longer found in the Rules of Court. The objective of procedural rules is to ensure a just and orderly administration of justice, not to give plaintiffs unrestricted freedom to choose a court based on whim or caprice. The Court emphasized that the venue should not be left to the plaintiff's arbitrary choice, as this could be motivated by ulterior purposes. The Court distinguished the present case from Marquez Lim Cay vs. Del Rosario, where the defendants' actions constituted a submission to the court's jurisdiction prior to raising the venue objection. The Court cited Evangelista vs. Santos and other cases where dismissal for improper venue was sustained when the objection was timely raised. On the issue of whether the venue was properly laid: The Court found that the venue was improperly laid. The residence of a corporation for venue purposes is its principal place of business, not the residence of its officers or stockholders. Tyson Enterprises, Inc.'s principal place of business was in Manila. Therefore, the suit should have been filed in Manila. Alternatively, it could have been filed in Bacolod City, the residence of the defendant John Sy. The allegation of the president's residence in San Juan, Rizal, was deemed an attempt to justify the filing in Pasig, Rizal, which was improper.
Main Doctrine
Filing a motion for a bill of particulars before filing a motion to dismiss based on improper venue does not constitute a waiver of the objection to venue, provided the motion to dismiss is seasonably filed.