Davao Light vs. CA - CivPro

Case #6: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 111685.
August 20,
2001)
TOPIC: JURISDICTION vs. VENUE
FACTS:
On April 10, 1992, petitioner Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. filed a complaint for damages against
private respondent Francisco Tesorero before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 11.
Docketed as CEB-11578, the complaint prayed for damages in the amount of P11,000,000.00.
In lieu of an answer, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss claiming that: (a) the complaint did
not state a cause of action; (b) the plaintiff's claim has been extinguished or otherwise rendered moot and
academic; (c) there was non-joinder of indispensable parties; and (d) venue was improperly laid. Of
these four (4) grounds, the last mentioned is most material in this case at bar.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:
It is private respondent's contention that the proper venue is Davao City, and not Cebu City where
petitioner filed Civil Case No. CEB-11578.
Private respondent argues that petitioner is estopped from claiming that its residence is in Cebu
City, in view of contradictory statements made by petitioner prior to the filing of the action for
damages.
First, private respondent adverts to several contracts entered into by petitioner with the National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR) where in the description of personal circumstances, the former states that its
principal office is at "163-165 P. Reyes St., Davao City." According to private respondent the petitioner's
address in Davao City, as given in the contracts, is an admission, which should bind petitioner.
In addition, private respondent points out that petitioner made several judicial admissions as to its
principal office in Davao City consisting principally of allegations in pleadings filed by petitioner in a
number of civil cases pending before the Regional Trial Court of Davao in which it was either a plaintiff
or a defendant.
PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS:
Petitioner claimed that its principal place of business is in Cebu City, the contract it executed with
NAPOCOR and such other cases instituted by petitioner, all state that its principal office is in Davao City.
RTC RULING:
Dismissing petitioner’s complaint on the ground of improper venue:
The plaintiff being a private corporation undoubtedly Banilad, Cebu City is the plaintiff's principal place of
business as alleged in the complaint and which for purposes of venue is considered as its residence.
However, in defendant's motion to dismiss, it is alleged and submitted that the principal office of plaintiff is
at "163-165 P. Reyes Street, Davao City as borne out by the Contract of Lease and another Contract of
Lease of Generating Equipment executed by the plaintiff with the NAPOCOR.
Considering the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion that the principal office of plaintiff is at Davao City
which for purposes of venue is the residence of plaintiff.
Hence, the case should be filed in Davao City.
The motion on the ground of improper venue is granted and the complaint DISMISSED on that ground.
CA RULING:
The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed judgment denying due course and dismissing the petition.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the case was filed in a proper venue.
2. Whether or not Jurisdiction is the same from Venue.
RULING:
Venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters. Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver
upon a court which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of an action; but the
venue of an action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties and an objection
that the plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be waived by the failure of the defendant
to make a timely objection.
In either case, the court may render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the
consent or agreement of the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.
Practically the same issue was addressed in Young Auto Supply Co. v. Court of Appeals. The same
considerations apply to the instant case. It cannot be disputed that petitioner's principal office is in Cebu
City, per its amended articles of incorporation and by-laws.
An action for damages being a personal action, venue is determined pursuant to Rule 4, Section 2 of the
Rules of Court, to wit:
Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff
or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides,
or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
Private respondent is not a party to any of the contracts presented before us. He is a complete stranger to
the covenants executed between petitioner and NAPOCOR, despite his protestations that he is privy
thereto, on the rather flimsy ground that he is a member of the public for whose benefit the electric
generating equipment subject of the contracts were leased or acquired. We are likewise not persuaded by
his argument that the allegation or representation made by petitioner in either the complaints or
answers it filed in several civil cases that its residence is in Davao City should estop it from filing the
damage suit before the Cebu courts. Besides there is no showing that private respondent is a party in
those civil cases or that he relied on such representation by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The appealed decision is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 11 is hereby directed to proceed with
Civil Case No. CEB-11578 with all deliberate dispatch. No pronouncement as to costs.
ONE LINER:
Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of the parties, however the venue of an
action as fixed by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties.

Davao Light vs. CA - CivPro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Davao Light vs. CA - CivPro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Davao Light vs. CA - CivPro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #6: Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 111685.

TOPIC: JURISDICTION vs. VENUE

Hence, the case should be filed in Davao City.

You might also like