Bell Raymond v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Santiago Bitera filed a complaint for damages against Carlos Bell Raymond and Agustin Alba with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo. Procedural History: Petitioners moved to dismiss the action on the ground of improper venue, arguing that while Bitera's address was in Iloilo City, he actually resided at the UPSUMCO Compound in Bais City, Negros Oriental, and his residence certificate was issued in Manjuyod, Negros Oriental. The Trial Court denied the motion. Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari and prohibition, which also dismissed their petition. The Court of Appeals noted that while it seemed inequitable to allow suit in Iloilo, the plaintiff has the right to elect where to bring his action based on his declared residence. The Petition: Petitioners sought reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the venue was improperly laid.
Issue(s)
Whether the venue for the personal action for damages was improperly laid. Whether the term "resides" in the context of venue provisions refers to actual residence or domicile.
Ruling
The questioned Order of the respondent Judge denying the motion to dismiss and the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the same are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Civil Case No. 17354 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch XXVI, is DISMISSED on the ground that venue has been improperly laid.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the venue for the personal action for damages was improperly laid: The Court held that the venue was indeed improperly laid. The petitioners seasonably objected to the venue in their motion to dismiss. The complaint was for damages, which is a personal action. According to Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, personal 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 determination of the plaintiff's residence for venue purposes is crucial. On Whether the term "resides" in the context of venue provisions refers to actual residence or domicile: The Court clarified the meaning of "resides" or "residence" in the context of venue statutes. Citing Garcia Fule v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated the doctrinal rule that "resides" connotes "actual residence" as distinguished from legal residence or domicile. The term is elastic and should be interpreted in light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule. In the application of venue statutes, residence, not domicile, is the significant factor. "Resides" should be viewed in its popular sense, meaning the personal, actual, or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode, signifying physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. This is different from domicile, which requires bodily presence and the intention to make it one's domicile. In the present case, despite Bitera's claim of Iloilo City as his permanent place of abode, the evidence showed his actual residence was in Bais City, Negros Oriental, where he was the officer-in-charge of UPSUMCO, and his residence certificate was issued there.
Main Doctrine
The term "resides" or "residence" in venue provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly for personal actions, refers to the actual residence or place of abode, not the legal residence or domicile, and the plaintiff has the right to elect where to file the action based on their residence.