Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 145 views

    Saludo v. American Express

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was properly laid in Southern Leyte for the complaint filed by petitioner Saludo against American Express. As a congressman representing Southern Leyte, Saludo was deemed a resident there for purposes of venue. While his community tax certificate was from another city, one can have multiple residences, and Southern Leyte qualified as Saludo's residence. The Court of Appeals' decision that venue was improper was reversed, and the trial court's orders allowing the case to proceed in Southern Leyte were reinstated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Saludo v. American Express

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    145 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was properly laid in Southern Leyte for the complaint filed by petitioner Saludo against American Express. As a congressman representing Southern Leyte, Saludo was deemed a resident there for purposes of venue. While his community tax certificate was from another city, one can have multiple residences, and Southern Leyte qualified as Saludo's residence. The Court of Appeals' decision that venue was improper was reversed, and the trial court's orders allowing the case to proceed in Southern Leyte were reinstated.

    Original Title

    128. Saludo v. American Express (2)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was properly laid in Southern Leyte for the complaint filed by petitioner Saludo against American Express. As a congressman representing Southern Leyte, Saludo was deemed a resident there for purposes of venue. While his community tax certificate was from another city, one can have multiple residences, and Southern Leyte qualified as Saludo's residence. The Court of Appeals' decision that venue was improper was reversed, and the trial court's orders allowing the case to proceed in Southern Leyte were reinstated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    145 views2 pages

    Saludo v. American Express

    Uploaded by

    Lolit Carlos
    The Supreme Court ruled that venue was properly laid in Southern Leyte for the complaint filed by petitioner Saludo against American Express. As a congressman representing Southern Leyte, Saludo was deemed a resident there for purposes of venue. While his community tax certificate was from another city, one can have multiple residences, and Southern Leyte qualified as Saludo's residence. The Court of Appeals' decision that venue was improper was reversed, and the trial court's orders allowing the case to proceed in Southern Leyte were reinstated.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Luna, Marishifra M.

    128. Saludo v. American Express G.R. No. 159507

    PETITIONER: Aniceto G. SALUDO, Jr.


    RESPONDENT: AMERICAN EXPRESS International, Inc., and/or Ian T. Fish and Dominic Mascrinas
    DATE: April 19, 2006
    PONENTE: Callejo, Sr., J.
    TOPIC: RULE 4: Venue

    FACTS:
    1. This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Petitioner Saludo seeking to reverse and set
    aside the Decision of the CA. The assailed Decision directed the RTC to vacate and set aside its
    Orders and enjoined the presiding judge from conducting further proceedings in said case, except
    to dismiss the complaint filed therewith on ground of improper venue.
    2. Saludo, petitioner, filed a complaint for damages against respondents AMEX and/or its officers
    with the RTC of Maasin.
    3. The complaint alleged that petitioner, a resident of Ichon, Macrohon, S.L. and defendant with
    office in Makati. It stemmed from a wrongful dishonor of the petitioner's AMEX Credit Card and
    the card issued to his daughter when he tried to use the same by means of paying his wife’s
    purchases in the United States.
    4. Eventually, the cards were cancelled by herein respondents.
    5. The dishonor of these AMEX credit cards were allegedly unjustified as they resulted from
    respondents' unilateral act of suspending petitioner Saludo's account for his failure to pay its
    balance
    6. In their answer, respondents specifically denied the allegations in the complaint. Further, they
    raised the affirmative defenses of lack of cause of action and improper venue.
    7. Respondents averred that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that venue was
    improperly laid because none of the parties was a resident of Leyte. They alleged that
    respondents were not residents of Southern Leyte.
    8. The court a quo likewise denied respondents' affirmative defense that venue was improperly laid.
    9. The appellate court rendered the assailed decision granting respondents' petition for certiorari as
    it found that venue was improperly laid.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in granting the petition for certiorari on the ground that the venue
    was improperly laid because not one of the parties, including petitioner Saludo, as plaintiff therein, was a
    resident of Southern Leyte at the time of filing of the complaint [YES].

    RULING:
    ● For purposes of venue, the less technical definition of "residence" is adopted. Thus, it is
    understood to mean as "the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence
    or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular
    sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or
    domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while
    domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile.
    ● Since petitioner Saludo, as congressman or the lone representative of the district of Southern
    Leyte, had his residence (or domicile) therein as the term is construed in relation to election laws,
    necessarily, he is also deemed to have had his residence therein for purposes of venue for filing
    personal actions. Put in another manner, Southern Leyte, as the domicile of petitioner Saludo,
    was also his residence, as the term is understood in its popular sense. This is because
    "residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an
    unlimited time."
    ● The fact then that petitioner Saludo's community tax certificate was issued at Pasay City is of no
    moment because granting arguendo that he could be considered a resident therein, the same
    does not preclude his having a residence in Southern Leyte for purposes of venue. A man can
    have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous
    places of residence
    ● Petitioner Saludo's verification and certification of non-forum shopping states that he has "read
    the contents thereof [referring to the petition] and the same are true and correct of my own
    personal knowledge and belief and on the basis of the records at hand." The same clearly
    constitutes substantial compliance with the Sec. 4, Rule 7.

    DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May
    22, 2003 and Resolution dated August 14, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69553 are
    REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated September 10, 2001 and January 2, 2002 of the
    Regional Trial Court of Maasin City, Southern Leyte, Branch 25 thereof, in Civil Case No. R-3172 are
    REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.

    You might also like