Ang v. Ang
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Alan and Em Ang (respondents) obtained a loan of US$300,000.00 from spouses Theodore and Nancy Ang (petitioners) on September 2, 1992, executing a promissory note with a 10% annual interest rate, payable upon demand. Despite repeated demands, the respondents failed to pay the loan, which by August 28, 2006, had accumulated to US$719,671.23. The petitioners, residing in Los Angeles, California, USA, executed Special Powers of Attorney in favor of Atty. Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron to file a collection case against the respondents. 2. Procedural History: Atty. Aceron, on behalf of the petitioners, filed a complaint for collection of sum of money with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of improper venue and prescription, arguing that the venue was improperly laid as they resided in Bacolod City and the petitioners resided in the USA. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, citing the Special Power of Attorney and Atty. Aceron's residence in Quezon City as establishing proper venue. The respondents' motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled and set aside the RTC orders and directed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the case should have been filed in Bacolod City where the respondents reside, as the residence of the attorney-in-fact is irrelevant for venue determination when the plaintiffs reside abroad. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, through their attorney-in-fact, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA committed reversible error in ruling that the complaint must be dismissed due to improper venue. The petitioners contend that Atty. Aceron, as their attorney-in-fact, is deemed a real party in interest under Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, and therefore, the complaint could be filed in the RTC of Quezon City where Atty. Aceron resides. They maintain that the CA erred in not considering Atty. Aceron's residence for venue purposes and in dismissing the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it ruled that the complaint must be dismissed on the ground that venue was not properly laid, considering the plaintiffs are non-residents of the Philippines. Whether the residence of the attorney-in-fact is material in determining the venue of a personal action when the plaintiffs are non-residents of the Philippines.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated August 28, 2008 and Resolution dated February 20, 2009 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101159 are affirmed. The petitioners' complaint should have been filed in the RTC of Bacolod City, the court of the place where the respondents reside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of venue for non-resident plaintiffs: The rules on venue for personal actions, which seek to enforce a contract, give the plaintiff the option to file the complaint where the plaintiff or defendant resides. However, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides. This principle was established in Cohen and Cohen v. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd., where it was held that when the plaintiff has no residence in the Philippine Islands, there can be no election as to the place of trial, and it must be in the province where the defendant resides. In this case, the petitioners reside in Los Angeles, California, USA, and the respondents reside in Bacolod City. Therefore, the complaint could only be filed in the RTC of Bacolod City, and not in Quezon City. On the materiality of the attorney-in-fact's residence: The Court clarified that an attorney-in-fact, despite being appointed through a Special Power of Attorney to prosecute a claim, is not a real party in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or is entitled to the avails of the suit. Atty. Aceron was merely appointed to file and prosecute the complaint on behalf of the petitioners, who are the actual parties with the right sought to be enforced. His residence, therefore, is immaterial in determining the proper venue of the action. The reliance on Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court by the petitioners is misplaced, as this provision pertains to representatives and beneficiaries, and does not equate the representative to a real party in interest for venue purposes. The CA correctly held that the principal remains the true party to the case, not the representative.
Main Doctrine
When the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in a personal action may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides, and the residence of the plaintiff's attorney-in-fact is immaterial to the determination of venue.