[G.R. NO.

186993 - August 22, 2012] improper venue, the court explained

that:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
THEODORE and NANCY ANG, represented by ELDRIGE MARVIN B.
ACERON, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ALAN and EM ANG, Respondents. Attached to the complaint is the Special Power of Attorney x x x which clearly states
that plaintiff Nancy Ang constituted Atty. Eldrige Marvin Aceron as her duly
DECISION
appointed attorney-in-fact to prosecute her claim against herein defendants.
REYES, J.: Considering that the address given by Atty. Aceron is in Quezon City, hence, being
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of the plaintiff, venue of the action may lie where he resides as provided in Section 2,
Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision1 dated August 28, 2008 and the Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.10ςrνll
Resolution2 dated February 20, 2009 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- chanrobles virtual law library
G.R. SP No. 101159. The assailed decision annulled and set aside the Orders dated
The respondents sought reconsideration of the RTC Order dated April 12, 2007,
April 12, 20073 and August 27, 20074 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
asserting that there is no law which allows the filing of a complaint in the court of
Quezon City, Branch 81 in Civil Case No. Q-06-58834.
the place where the representative, who was appointed as such by the plaintiffs
The Antecedent Facts through a Special Power of Attorney, resides.11ςrνll
On September 2, 1992, spouses Alan and Em Ang (respondents) obtained a loan in The respondents motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC of Quezon City
the amount of Three Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$300,000.00) from Theodore in its Order12 dated August 27, 2007.
and Nancy Ang (petitioners). On even date, the respondents executed a
The respondents then filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari13 alleging in the main
promissory note5 in favor of the petitioners wherein they promised to pay the latter
that, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, the petitioners complaint
the said amount, with interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, upon
may only be filed in the court of the place where they or the petitioners reside.
demand. However, despite repeated demands, the respondents failed to pay the
Considering that the petitioners reside in Los Angeles, California, USA, the
petitioners.
respondents assert that the complaint below may only be filed in the RTC of
Thus, on August 28, 2006, the petitioners sent the respondents a demand letter Bacolod City, the court of the place where they reside in the Philippines.
asking them to pay their outstanding debt which, at that time, already amounted to
The respondents further claimed that, the petitioners grant of Special Power of
Seven Hundred Nineteen Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy-One U.S. Dollars and
Attorney in favor of Atty. Aceron notwithstanding, the said complaint may not be
Twenty-Three Cents (US$719,671.23), inclusive of the ten percent (10%) annual
filed in the court of the place where Atty. Aceron resides, i.e., RTC of Quezon City.
interest that had accumulated over the years. Notwithstanding the receipt of the
They explained that Atty. Aceron, being merely a representative of the petitioners, is
said demand letter, the respondents still failed to settle their loan obligation.
not the real party in interest in the case below; accordingly, his residence should not
On August 6, 2006, the petitioners, who were then residing in Los Angeles, California, be considered in determining the proper venue of the said complaint.
United States of America (USA), executed their respective Special Powers of
The CA Decision
Attorney6 in favor of Attorney Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron (Atty. Aceron) for the
purpose of filing an action in court against the respondents. On September 15, 2006, On August 28, 2008, the CA rendered the herein Decision,14 which annulled and set
Atty. Aceron, in behalf of the petitioners, filed a Complaint7 for collection of sum of aside the Orders dated April 12, 2007 and August 27, 2007 of the RTC of Quezon City
money with the RTC of Quezon City against the respondents. and, accordingly, directed the dismissal of the complaint filed by the petitioners.
The CA held that the complaint below should have been filed in Bacolod City and
On November 21, 2006, the respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint
not in Quezon City. Thus:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
filed by the petitioners on the grounds of improper venue and prescription.8 Insisting
that the venue of the petitioners action was improperly laid, the respondents As maybe clearly gleaned from the foregoing, the place of residence of the plaintiff
asserted that the complaint against them may only be filed in the court of the place s attorney-in-fact is of no moment when it comes to ascertaining the venue of cases
where either they or the petitioners reside. They averred that they reside in Bacolod filed in behalf of the principal since what should be considered is the residence of
City while the petitioners reside in Los Angeles, California, USA. Thus, the respondents the real parties in interest, i.e., the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be.
maintain, the filing of the complaint against them in the RTC of Quezon City was Residence is the permanent home the place to which, whenever absent for
improper. business or pleasure, one intends to return. Residence is vital when dealing with
venue. Plaintiffs, herein private respondents, being residents of Los Angeles,
The RTC Orders
California, U.S.A., which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Philippine courts, the
On April 12, 2007, the RTC of Quezon City issued an Order 9 which, inter alia, denied case should have been filed in Bacolod City where the defendants, herein
the respondents motion to dismiss. In ruling against the respondents claim of petitioners, reside. Since the case was filed in Quezon City, where the representative

1
of the plaintiffs resides, contrary to Sec. 2 of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the be residents of the place where the action has been instituted at the time the
trial court should have dismissed the case for improper venue.15ςrνll action is commenced.20ςrνll
chanrobles virtual law library However, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case
The petitioners sought a reconsideration of the Decision dated August 28, 2008, but may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides. In Cohen
it was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated February 20, and Cohen v. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd.,21 this Court held that there can be no
2009.16ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ election as to the venue of the filing of a complaint when the plaintiff has no
residence in the Philippines. In such case, the complaint may only be filed in the
Hence, the instant petition.
court of the place where the defendant resides.
chanrobles virtual law library Thus:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
Issue Section 377 provides that actions of this character "may be brought in any province
In the instant petition, the petitioners submit this lone issue for this Court s where the defendant or any necessary party defendant may reside or be found, or
resolution:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ in any province where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW the plaintiff." The plaintiff in this action has no residence in the Philippine Islands. Only
WHEN IT RULED THAT THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT one of the parties to the action resides here. There can be, therefore, no election by
VENUE WAS NOT PROPERLY LAID.17ςrνll plaintiff as to the place of trial. It must be in the province where the defendant
resides. x x x.22 (Emphasis ours)
The Court s Ruling
chanrobles virtual law library
The petition is denied.
Here, the petitioners are residents of Los Angeles, California, USA while the
chanrobles virtual law library respondents reside in Bacolod City. Applying the foregoing principles, the petitioners
Contrary to the CA s disposition, the petitioners maintain that their complaint for complaint against the respondents may only be filed in the RTC of Bacolod City the
collection of sum of money against the respondents may be filed in the RTC of court of the place where the respondents reside. The petitioners, being residents of
Quezon City. Invoking Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, they insist that Atty. Los Angeles, California, USA, are not given the choice as to the venue of the filing of
Aceron, being their attorney-in-fact, is deemed a real party in interest in the case their complaint.
below and can prosecute the same before the RTC. Such being the case, the Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible error when it annulled and set aside the
petitioners assert, the said complaint for collection of sum of money may be filed in orders of the RTC of Quezon City and consequently dismissed the petitioners
the court of the place where Atty. Aceron resides, which is the RTC of Quezon City. complaint against the respondents on the ground of improper venue.
On the other hand, the respondents in their Comment18 assert that the petitioners In this regard, it bears stressing that the situs for bringing real and personal civil
are proscribed from filing their complaint in the RTC of Quezon City. They assert that actions is fixed by the Rules of Court to attain the greatest convenience possible to
the residence of Atty. Aceron, being merely a representative, is immaterial to the the litigants and their witnesses by affording them maximum accessibility to the
determination of the venue of the petitioners complaint. courts.23 And even as the regulation of venue is primarily for the convenience of the
The petitioners complaint should plaintiff, as attested by the fact that the choice of venue is given to him, it should
have been filed in the RTC of not be construed to unduly deprive a resident defendant of the rights conferred
Bacolod City, the court of the place upon him by the Rules of Court.24ςrνll
where the respondents reside, and Atty. Aceron is not a real party in
not in RTC of Quezon City. interest in the case below; thus, his
It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal actions are fixed for the residence is immaterial to the venue
convenience of the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the of the filing of the complaint.
principle that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a plaintiff s caprice; the Contrary to the petitioners claim, Atty. Aceron, despite being the attorney-in-fact of
matter is regulated by the Rules of Court.19ςrνll the petitioners, is not a real party in interest in the case below. Section 2, Rule 3 of
The petitioners complaint for collection of sum of money against the respondents is the Rules of Court reads:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
a personal action as it primarily seeks the enforcement of a contract. The Rules give Sec. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
the plaintiff the option of choosing where to file his complaint. He can file it in the benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
place (1) where he himself or any of them resides, or (2) where the defendant or
any of the defendants resides or may be found. The plaintiff or the defendant must
2
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be As may be unerringly gleaned from the foregoing provisions, there is nothing therein
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (Emphasis ours) that expressly allows, much less implies that an action may be filed in the city or
chanrobles virtual law library municipality where either a representative or an attorney-in-fact of a real party in
interest resides. Sec. 3 of Rule 3 merely provides that the name or names of the
Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an
person or persons being represented must be included in the title of the case and
interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
such person or persons shall be considered the real party in interest. In other words,
distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved.25 A real party in
the principal remains the true party to the case and not the representative. Under
interest is the party who, by the substantive law, has the right sought to be
the plain meaning rule, or verba legis, if a statute is clear, plain and free from
enforced.26ςrνll
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation.
Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that Atty. Aceron is not a real party in interest xxx29 (Citation omitted)
in the case below as he does not stand to be benefited or injured by any judgment
chanrobles virtual law library
therein. He was merely appointed by the petitioners as their attorney-in-fact for the
limited purpose of filing and prosecuting the complaint against the respondents. At this juncture, it bears stressing that the rules on venue, like the other procedural
Such appointment, however, does not mean that he is subrogated into the rights of rules, are designed to insure a just and orderly administration of justice or the
petitioners and ought to be considered as a real party in interest. impartial and even-handed determination of every action and proceeding.
Obviously, this objective will not be attained if the plaintiff is given unrestricted
Being merely a representative of the petitioners, Atty. Aceron in his personal
freedom to choose the court where he may file his complaint or petition. The choice
capacity does not have the right to file the complaint below against the
of venue should not be left to the plaintiff's whim or caprice. He may be impelled by
respondents. He may only do so, as what he did, in behalf of the petitioners the real
some ulterior motivation in choosing to file a case in a particular court even if not
parties in interest. To stress, the right sought to be enforced in the case below
allowed by the rules on venue.30ςrνll
belongs to the petitioners and not to Atty. Aceron. Clearly, an attorney-in-fact is not
a real party in interest.27ςrνll WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The
Decision dated August 28, 2008 and Resolution dated February 20, 2009 rendered
The petitioner s reliance on Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court to support their
by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101159 are AFFIRMED.
conclusion that Atty. Aceron is likewise a party in interest in the case below is
misplaced. Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides SO ORDERED.
that:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted
and defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the
beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be the
real property in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an expert trust, a
guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules.
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal
may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves
things belonging to the principal. (Emphasis ours)
chanrobles virtual law library
Nowhere in the rule cited above is it stated or, at the very least implied, that the
representative is likewise deemed as the real party in interest. The said rule simply
states that, in actions which are allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
representative, the beneficiary shall be deemed the real party in interest and,
hence, should be included in the title of the case.
Indeed, to construe the express requirement of residence under the rules on venue
as applicable to the attorney-in-fact of the plaintiff would abrogate the meaning of
a "real party in interest", as defined in Section 2 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court
vis-à -vis Section 3 of the same Rule.28ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
On this score, the CA aptly observed that:ςrαlαω
3