Baritua v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a complaint for damages arising from a quasi-delict. Private respondent Roy R. Domingo, through his attorney-in-fact Crispin A. Domingo, filed a complaint against petitioner Jose Baritua, the owner and operator of J.B. Bus Lines. The damages sought were a consequence of a bus owned by petitioner colliding with private respondent's car along the Maharlika Highway in Sto. Tomas, Batangas, on January 19, 1988. Procedural History: The complaint was initially filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the venue was improper because private respondent, not being a resident of the Philippines, should have filed the suit in the place of petitioner's residence in Gubat, Sorsogon. The trial court denied this motion, finding that private respondent was merely temporarily abroad and retained his legal residence in Rosales, Pangasinan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Petition: Petitioner Jose Baritua seeks a writ of certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed gross error and grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his petition. He contends that the venue was improperly laid, citing the admitted fact that private respondent Roy R. Domingo has been a resident of Los Angeles, California, USA, since February 18, 1988. The petition emphasizes that for personal actions, venue is determined by the actual residence of the parties, and private respondent's continuous and consistent presence in the United States for over a year at the time of filing the complaint rendered the chosen venue in Rosales, Pangasinan, improper.
Issue(s)
Whether the venue for the complaint for damages was improperly laid. Whether respondent Court of Appeals committed gross error and grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The complaint in Civil Case No. 915-R is dismissed for improper venue.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper venue: A complaint for damages is a personal action. Section 2(b) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court states that 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. The Rules grant the plaintiff the option to file the complaint in either the plaintiff's place of residence or the defendant's place of residence or where the defendant may be found. Crucially, the term "resides" in this context refers to actual residence or place of abode, which requires physical presence with continuity and consistency, and not necessarily legal residence or domicile. The Court noted that private respondent left for the United States on April 25, 1988, before the complaint was filed on June 26, 1989. This fact was admitted in the complaint itself, where private respondent stated he was a resident of Poblacion, Rosales, Pangasinan before going to the United States where he now lives at 4525 Leata Lane, La Cantada, LA 91011. Furthermore, the special power of attorney executed by private respondent on February 18, 1988, before the Philippine Consul in Los Angeles, California, declared him a resident of Los Angeles, California. Private respondent's stay in the United States was not temporary; he fixed his abode there and stayed continuously and consistently for over a year before the complaint was filed. The temporary nature of his visa did not negate his residency in the United States, and there was no showing that he returned to the Philippines and resumed residence in Rosales, Pangasinan after filing the complaint. Petitioner's claim of continuous residence in the United States since 1988 remained unrefuted. The venue in Rosales, Pangasinan was therefore improperly laid because neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resided there at the time the action was commenced. The plaintiff's choice of venue is not left to caprice and cannot unduly deprive a defendant of rights conferred by the Rules of Court. There was no provided ratio for the second issue.
Main Doctrine
For venue purposes in personal actions, 'residence' refers to actual residence or place of abode, which requires physical presence with continuity and consistency, not necessarily legal residence or domicile.