1) Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corp. vs Goldstar Elevators, Phils., Inc., (GR. No.

161026, Oct. 24, 2005)

The relevant facts of the case are summarized by the CA in this wise:
"Petitioner [herein Respondent] Goldstar Elevator Philippines, Inc. (GOLDSTAR for brevity) is a
domestic corporation primarily engaged in the business of marketing, distributing, selling, importing,
installing, and maintaining elevators and escalators, with address at 6th Floor, Jacinta II Building, 64
EDSA, Guadalupe, Makati City.
"On the other hand, private respondent [herein petitioner] Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Company
(HYATT for brevity) is a domestic corporation similarly engaged in the business of selling, installing
and maintaining/servicing elevators, escalators and parking equipment, with address at the 6th
Floor, Dao I Condominium, Salcedo St., Legaspi Village, Makati, as stated in its Articles of
Incorporation.
"On February 23, 1999, HYATT filed a Complaint for unfair trade practices and damages under
Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines against LG Industrial Systems Co. Ltd.
(LGISC) and LG International Corporation (LGIC), alleging among others, that: in 1988, it was
appointed by LGIC and LGISC as the exclusive distributor of LG elevators and escalators in the
Philippines under a Distributorship Agreement; x x x LGISC, in the latter part of 1996, made a
proposal to change the exclusive distributorship agency to that of a joint venture partnership; while it
looked forward to a healthy and fruitful negotiation for a joint venture, however, the various meetings
it had with LGISC and LGIC, through the latters representatives, were conducted in utmost bad faith
and with malevolent intentions; in the middle of the negotiations, in order to put pressures upon it,
LGISC and LGIC terminated the Exclusive Distributorship Agreement; x x x [A]s a consequence,
[HYATT] sufferedP120,000,000.00 as actual damages, representing loss of earnings and business
opportunities, P20,000,000.00 as damages for its reputation and goodwill, P1,000,000.00 as and by
way of exemplary damages, andP500,000.00 as and by way of attorneys fees.
"On March 17, 1999, LGISC and LGIC filed a Motion to Dismiss raising the following grounds: (1)
lack of jurisdiction over the persons of defendants, summons not having been served on its resident
agent; (2) improper venue; and (3) failure to state a cause of action. The [trial] court denied the said
motion in an Order dated January 7, 2000.
"On March 6, 2000, LGISC and LGIC filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim ex abundante
cautela. Thereafter, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration and to Expunge Complaint which was
denied.
"On December 4, 2000, HYATT filed a motion for leave of court to amend the complaint, alleging that
subsequent to the filing of the complaint, it learned that LGISC transferred all its organization, assets
and goodwill, as a consequence of a joint venture agreement with Otis Elevator Company of the
USA, to LG Otis Elevator Company (LG OTIS, for brevity). Thus, LGISC was to be substituted or
changed to LG OTIS, its successor-in-interest. Likewise, the motion averred that x x x GOLDSTAR
was being utilized by LG OTIS and LGIC in perpetrating their unlawful and unjustified acts against
HYATT. Consequently, in order to afford complete relief, GOLDSTAR was to be additionally
impleaded as a party-defendant. Hence, in the Amended Complaint, HYATT impleaded x x x
GOLDSTAR as a party-defendant, and all references to LGISC were correspondingly replaced with
LG OTIS.

"On December 18, 2000, LG OTIS (LGISC) and LGIC filed their opposition to HYATTs motion to
amend the complaint. It argued that: (1) the inclusion of GOLDSTAR as party-defendant would lead
to a change in the theory of the case since the latter took no part in the negotiations which led to the
alleged unfair trade practices subject of the case; and (b) HYATTs move to amend the complaint at
that time was dilatory, considering that HYATT was aware of the existence of GOLDSTAR for almost
two years before it sought its inclusion as party-defendant.
"On January 8, 2001, the [trial] court admitted the Amended Complaint. LG OTIS (LGISC) and LGIC
filed a motion for reconsideration thereto but was similarly rebuffed on October 4, 2001.
"On April 12, 2002, x x x GOLDSTAR filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint, raising the
following grounds: (1) the venue was improperly laid, as neither HYATT nor defendants reside in
Mandaluyong City, where the original case was filed; and (2) failure to state a cause of action
against [respondent], since the amended complaint fails to allege with certainty what specific
ultimate acts x x x Goldstar performed in violation of x x x Hyatts rights. In the Order dated May 27,
2002, which is the main subject of the present petition, the [trial] court denied the motion to dismiss,
ratiocinating as follows:
Upon perusal of the factual and legal arguments raised by the movants-defendants, the court finds
that these are substantially the same issues posed by the then defendant LG Industrial System Co.
particularly the matter dealing [with] the issues of improper venue, failure to state cause of action as
well as this courts lack of jurisdiction. Under the circumstances obtaining, the court resolves to rule
that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action and that the venue is properly laid. It is
significant to note that in the amended complaint, the same allegations are adopted as in the original
complaint with respect to the Goldstar Philippines to enable this court to adjudicate a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action it appearing preliminarily as sufficiently
alleged in the plaintiffs pleading that said Goldstar Elevator Philippines Inc., is being managed and
operated by the same Korean officers of defendants LG-OTIS Elevator Company and LG
International Corporation.
"On June 11, 2002, [Respondent] GOLDSTAR filed a motion for reconsideration thereto. On June
18, 2002, without waiving the grounds it raised in its motion to dismiss, [it] also filed an Answer Ad
Cautelam. On October 1, 2002, [its] motion for reconsideration was denied.
"From the aforesaid Order denying x x x Goldstars motion for reconsideration, it filed the x x x
petition for certiorari [before the CA] alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of the [trial] court in issuing the assailed Orders dated May 27, 2002 and
October 1, 2002."5
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA ruled that the trial court had committed palpable error amounting to grave abuse of
discretion when the latter denied respondents Motion to Dismiss. The appellate court held that the
venue was clearly improper, because none of the litigants "resided" in Mandaluyong City, where the
case was filed.
According to the appellate court, since Makati was the principal place of business of both respondent
and petitioner, as stated in the latters Articles of Incorporation, that place was controlling for
purposes of determining the proper venue. The fact that petitioner had abandoned its principal office

in Makati years prior to the filing of the original case did not affect the venue where personal actions
could be commenced and tried.
Hence, this Petition.6
The Issue
In its Memorandum, petitioner submits this sole issue for our consideration:
"Whether or not the Court of Appeals, in reversing the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, erred as a
matter of law and jurisprudence, as well as committed grave abuse of discretion, in holding that in
the light of the peculiar facts of this case, venue was improper[.]"7
This Courts Ruling
The Petition has no merit.
Sole Issue:
Venue
The resolution of this case rests upon a proper understanding of Section 2 of Rule 4 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Court:
"Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions may be commenced and tried where the
plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendant resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election
of the plaintiff."
Since both parties to this case are corporations, there is a need to clarify the meaning of "residence."
The law recognizes two types of persons: (1) natural and (2) juridical. Corporations come under the
latter in accordance with Article 44(3) of the Civil Code.8
Residence is the permanent home -- the place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure,
one intends to return.9 Residence is vital when dealing with venue. 10 A corporation, however, has no
residence in the same sense in which this term is applied to a natural person. This is precisely the
reason why the Court in Young Auto Supply Company v. Court of Appeals11 ruled that "for practical
purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is
located as stated in the articles of incorporation." 12 Even before this ruling, it has already been
established that the residence of a corporation is the place where its principal office is established. 13
This Court has also definitively ruled that for purposes of venue, the term "residence" is synonymous
with "domicile."14 Correspondingly, the Civil Code provides:
"Art. 51. When the law creating or recognizing them, or any other provision does not fix the domicile
of juridical persons, the same shall be understood to be the place where their legal representation is
established or where they exercise their principal functions."15

It now becomes apparent that the residence or domicile of a juridical person is fixed by "the law
creating or recognizing" it. Under Section 14(3) of the Corporation Code, the place where the
principal office of the corporation is to be located is one of the required contents of the articles of
incorporation, which shall be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
In the present case, there is no question as to the residence of respondent. What needs to be
examined is that of petitioner. Admittedly,16 the latters principal place of business is Makati, as
indicated in its Articles of Incorporation. Since the principal place of business of a corporation
determines its residence or domicile, then the place indicated in petitioners articles of incorporation
becomes controlling in determining the venue for this case.
Petitioner argues that the Rules of Court do not provide that when the plaintiff is a corporation, the
complaint should be filed in the location of its principal office as indicated in its articles of
incorporation.17 Jurisprudence has, however, settled that the place where the principal office of a
corporation is located, as stated in the articles, indeed establishes its residence. 18 This ruling is
important in determining the venue of an action by or against a corporation, 19 as in the present case.
Without merit is the argument of petitioner that the locality stated in its Articles of Incorporation does
not conclusively indicate that its principal office is still in the same place. We agree with the appellate
court in its observation that the requirement to state in the articles the place where the principal
office of the corporation is to be located "is not a meaningless requirement. That proviso would be
rendered nugatory if corporations were to be allowed to simply disregard what is expressly stated in
their Articles of Incorporation."20
Inconclusive are the bare allegations of petitioner that it had closed its Makati office and relocated to
Mandaluyong City, and that respondent was well aware of those circumstances.
Assuming arguendo that they transacted business with each other in the Mandaluyong office of
petitioner, the fact remains that, in law, the latters residence was still the place indicated in its
Articles of Incorporation. Further unacceptable is its faulty reasoning that the ground for the CAs
dismissal of its Complaint was its failure to amend its Articles of Incorporation so as to reflect its
actual and present principal office. The appellate court was clear enough in its ruling that the
Complaint was dismissed because the venue had been improperly laid, not because of the failure of
petitioner to amend the latters Articles of Incorporation.
Indeed, it is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed for the
convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the principle that
choosing the venue of an action is not left to a plaintiffs caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules
of Court.21 Allowing petitioners arguments may lead precisely to what this Court was trying to avoid
in Young Auto Supply Company v. CA:22 the creation of confusion and untold inconveniences to party
litigants. Thus enunciated the CA:
"x x x. To insist that the proper venue is the actual principal office and not that stated in its Articles of
Incorporation would indeed create confusion and work untold inconvenience. Enterprising litigants
may, out of some ulterior motives, easily circumvent the rules on venue by the simple expedient of
closing old offices and opening new ones in another place that they may find well to suit their
needs."23
We find it necessary to remind party litigants, especially corporations, as follows:

"The rules on venue, like the other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly
administration of justice or the impartial and evenhanded determination of every action and
proceeding. Obviously, this objective will not be attained if the plaintiff is given unrestricted freedom
to choose the court where he may file his complaint or petition.
"The choice of venue should not be left to the plaintiffs whim or caprice. He may be impelled by
some ulterior motivation in choosing to file a case in a particular court even if not allowed by the
rules on venue."24
WHEREFORE,
the
Petition
is
hereby DENIED, and
Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

the

assailed

Decision

and