Nocum and PDI v.

Tan
Sept. 23, 2005 | J. Chico-Nazario
Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction vs. Venue
LAS

DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place where the case is to be
heard or tried; Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law; Jurisdiction establishes a
relation between the court and the subject matter; venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner
and respondent; and, Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred
by the act or agreement of the parties.
SUMMARY: Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand Nocum, the PDI, et al. The RTC dismissed the
complaint on the ground of improper venue. Tan amended the complaint so the RTC set aside the dismissal. Nocum
and PDI then argued that the dismissal of the complaint failed to confer jurisdiction on the case to the RTC. The
Court held that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter upon the filing of the original complaint. It
did not lose jurisdiction over the same when it dismissed it on the ground of improper venue. The amendment
merely laid down the proper venue of the case.

FACTS:

 Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are the
decision of the CA dated 19 April 2000 that affirmed:
o the order of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 56, dated admitting Lucio Tan’s Amended Complaint for
Damages for the alleged malicious and defamatory imputations against him in two (2) articles of
the Philippine Daily Inquirer
o the RTC resolution denying Armand Nocum and Philippine Daily Inquirer’s motion for
reconsideration.
 On September 27, 1998, Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali,
ALPAP and Inquirer with the RTC of Makati, seeking moral and exemplary damages for the alleged
malicious and defamatory imputations contained in a news article.
 INQUIRER and NOCUM filed their joint answer wherein they alleged that: 
o the complaint failed to state a cause of action;
o the defamatory statements alleged in the complaint were general conclusions without factual
premises;
o the questioned news report constituted fair and true report on the matters of public interest
concerning a public figure and therefore, was privileged in nature; and
o malice on their part was negated by the publication in the same article of plaintiffs or PALs side of the
dispute with the pilots union.
 ALPAP and UMALI likewise filed their joint answer and alleged therein that: 
o the complaint stated no cause of action;
o venue was improperly laid; and
o plaintiff Tan was not a real party in interest. The complaint failed to state the residence of the
complainant at the time of the alleged commission of the offense and the place where the libelous
article was printed and first published.
 RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground of improper venue.
 Aggrieved, Tan sought reconsideration of the dismissal and admission of the amended complaint.
o In the amended complaint, it is alleged that This article was printed and first published in the City
of Makati and that This caricature was printed and first published in the City of Makati.
 The lower court admitted the amended complaint and deemed set aside the previous order of dismissal
stating that:
o The mistake or deficiency in the original complaint appears now to have been cured in the
Amended Complaint which can still be properly admitted, pursuant to Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, inasmuch as the Order of dismissal is not yet final.
 o There is no substantial amendment in the Amended Complaint which would affect the defendants
defenses and their Answers. The Amendment is merely formal, contrary to the contention of the
defendants that it is substantial.
 Dissatisfied, Nocum and PDI, together with defendants Capt. Florendo Umali and the Airline Pilots
Association of the Philippines, Inc. (ALPAP), appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. Two
petitions for certiorari were filed, one filed by Nocum and PDI, and the other by defendants Umali and
ALPAP. The two petitions were consolidated.
 CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.  
 Nocum and PDI state that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code vests jurisdiction over all civil and criminal
complaints for libel on the RTC of the place: (1) where the libelous article was printed and first published;
or (2) where the complainant, if a private person, resides; or (3) where the complainant, if a public official,
holds office.
o They argue that since the original complaint only contained the office address of respondent and
not the latters actual residence or the place where the allegedly offending news reports were
printed and first published, the original complaint, by reason of the deficiencies in its allegations,
failed to confer jurisdiction on the lower court.

ISSUE: Did the lower court acquire jurisdiction over the civil case upon the filing of the original complaint for
damages? – YES  

RULING:

 Jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint  since the latter comprises a
concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.
 From the allegations, Tan’s cause of action is for damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is
vested with the RTC. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is a Court of First Instance  that
is specifically designated to try a libel case.
 Nocum and PDI are confusing jurisdiction with venue. Hon. Florenz D. Regalado differentiated jurisdiction
and venue as follows: 

JURISDICTION VENUE
the authority to hear and determine a case the place where the case is to be heard or tried
a matter of substantive law procedural law
establishes a relation between the court and the Establishes a relation between plaintiff and defendant
subject matter
fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties may be conferred by the act or agreement of the
parties.

 The additional allegations in the Amended Complaint that the article and the caricature were printed and
first published in the City of Makati referred only to the question of venue and not jurisdiction.
 These additional allegations would neither confer jurisdiction on the RTC nor would Tan’s failure to
include the same in the original complaint divest the lower court of its jurisdiction over the case.
 Tan’s failure to allege these allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a party, to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not properly laid.
 The rules on venue in Article 360 as follows:
 Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may
be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published.
 If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the
Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense.
 If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the
commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
  If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of
the commission of the offense.
 The amended complaint or amendment to the complaint was not intended to vest jurisdiction to the lower
court, where originally it had none.
o The amendment was merely to establish the proper venue for the action.
o Venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions.
o Assuming that venue were properly laid in the court where the action was instituted, that would be
procedural, not a jurisdictional impediment. In fact, in civil cases, venue may be waived.
 Consequently, by dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue, the lower court had jurisdiction
over the case.
o Nocum and PDI recognized this jurisdiction by filing their answers to the
complaint, albeit, questioning the propriety of venue, instead of a motion to dismiss.
 Dismissal of the complaint by the lower court was proper considering that the complaint, indeed, on its
face, failed to allege neither the residence of the complainant nor the place where the libelous article was
printed and first published.
o Nevertheless, before the finality of the dismissal, the same may still be amended as in fact the
amended complaint was admitted, in view of the court  a quos  jurisdiction, of which it was never
divested. In so doing, the court acted properly and without any grave abuse of discretion.
 Objections to venue in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel may be waived since they do not involve a
question of jurisdiction.
o The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the
court over the person rather than the subject matter.
o Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction. It is a procedural, not a jurisdictional, matter. It relates
to the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought
and not to the jurisdiction of the court.
o It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it
relates to the place of trial.
 In contrast, in CRIMINAL ACTIONS, it is fundamental that venue is jurisdictional it being an essential
element of jurisdiction.
 The argument that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case because respondent failed to allege
the place where the libelous articles were printed and first published would have been tenable if the case
filed were a criminal case.
o The failure of the original complaint to contain such information would be fatal because this fact
involves the issue of venue which goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 
o This is not the case because in a civil action venue is not jurisdictional.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 19 April 2000 is
AFFIRMED in toto. No costs. SO ORDERED.