Diaz v. Adiong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Mindanao Kris newspaper published a news article and an editorial exposing alleged anomalies by key officials in the Regional Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The publisher-editor, Patricio P. Diaz, and another individual were named respondents in separate criminal and civil complaints for libel filed by the offended public officers before the City Prosecutor's Office and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Marawi City. Procedural History: The City Prosecutor's Office dismissed the criminal case, citing lack of jurisdiction and recommending it be filed in Cotabato City where the offended party held office. Meanwhile, in the civil case for damages before the RTC in Marawi City, the defendants, including petitioner Diaz, had already filed their respective Answers with Counterclaim. Petitioner Diaz later moved for the dismissal of the civil action, arguing improper venue. The RTC denied this motion, as well as the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Diaz filed a Petition for Certiorari, assailing the denial of his motion to dismiss, contending that the RTC in Marawi City lacked jurisdiction because the libelous articles were not printed or published there, and none of the offended public officers held office in Marawi City.
Issue(s)
Whether venue was improperly laid in Marawi City for the civil action for damages arising from libel. Whether the filing of an Answer with Counterclaim constitutes a waiver of the objection to improper venue.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order previously issued is LIFTED. The case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper venue: The Court held that venue was indeed improperly laid in Marawi City. According to Article 360, third paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 4363, an offended party who is a public official can only institute a libel action in the place where they hold office or where the libelous article was printed and first published. In this case, the offended public officers did not hold office in Marawi City, and the libelous articles were published in Cotabato City. Therefore, the RTC of Marawi City did not have the proper venue for the action. On the issue of waiver of improper venue: Despite the improper venue, the Court ruled that petitioner Diaz had waived his right to object. The rules require that objections to venue must be raised in a motion to dismiss prior to filing any responsive pleading. By filing an Answer with Counterclaim before moving to dismiss, petitioner Diaz had already submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that improper venue may be waived, and such waiver can occur by laches. The laying of venue is procedural and relates to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, not the subject matter, and is therefore waivable.
Main Doctrine
Improper venue in libel cases, while mandatory under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 4363, may be waived by the defendant if not raised in a motion to dismiss prior to filing a responsive pleading. The laying of venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction.