Nocum v. Lucio Tan, G.R. No.

145022, September 23, 2005  The lower court admitted the amended complaint and deemed set aside the
previous order of dismissal, supra (above), stating, inter alia (among others),
that:The mistake or deficiency in the original complaint appears now to
have been cured in the Amended Complaint x x x "
Antecedents as summarized by the Court of Appeals:  Dissatisfied, petitioners, together with defendants Florendo Umali and ALPAP,
appealed the RTC decision to CA. Two petitions for certiorari were filed. The two
 September 27, 1998 - Lucio Tan filed a complaint with the RTC-Makati against petitions were consolidated.
reporter Armand Nocum, Florendo Umali, ALPAP and Inquirer for alleged  April 19, 2000 – CA rendered its decision which say the petition is hereby
malicious and defamatory imputations contained in a news article seeking moral DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Order of the
and exemplary damages. court a quo (RTC) is hereby AFFIRMED.
 October 27, 1998 - INQUIRER and NOCUM filed their joint answer wherein they  September 15, 2000 – the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners and by
alleged that: defendants were likewise denied.
 Both petitioners and defendants Umali and ALPAP appealed to this Court, a
petition for review.
(1) the complaint failed to state a cause of action;
(2) the defamatory statements alleged in the complaint were general conclusions  Court required respondent Tan to comment on the petition filed by petitioners.
without factual premises; Respondent filed his comment to which petitioners filed a reply.
(3) the questioned news report constituted fair and true report on the matters of  August 20, 2003, the Court resolved to give due course to the petition and
public interest concerning a public figure and therefore, was privileged in required the parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days
nature; and from notice.8 Both petitioners and respondent complied.
(4) malice on their part was negated by the publication in the same article of
plaintiff’s or PAL’s side of the dispute with the pilot’s union. Petitioners assigned the following as errors:

 October 31, 1998 - ALPAP and UMALI likewise filed their joint answer and a. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING (1) THAT THE LOWER
alleged therein that: COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE (ON THE BASIS OF THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT) NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE
(1) the complaint stated no cause of action; LOWER COURT HAD EARLIER DISMISSED THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
(2) venue was improperly laid; and FOR ITS FAILURE TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT; AND
(3) Lucio Tan was not a real party in interest. b. THAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED OR
ADMITTED BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT WAS "NEVER DIVESTED" OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE;
It appeared that the complaint failed to state the residence of the complainant
c. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE ORIGINAL
at the time of the alleged commission of the offense and the place where the
COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT WAS AMENDED PURPOSELY TO
libelous article was printed and first published.
CONFER UPON THE LOWER COURT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.

 February 10, 1999 – RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the Petitioners state that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code vests
ground of improper venue. jurisdiction over all civil and criminal complaints for libel on the RTC of the
 February 24, 1999 – Aggrieved, Lucio Tan filed an Omnibus Motion seeking place: (1) where the libelous article was printed and first published; or (2)
reconsideration. In the amended complaint, it is alleged that: where the complainant, if a private person, resides; or (3) where the
complainant, if a public official, holds office. They argue that since the
This article was printed and first published in the City of Makati and that This original complaint only contained the office address of respondent and not the
caricature was printed and first published in the City of Makati. latter’s 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 any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the
original complaint for damages? We rule in the affirmative. offense.
b. If the offended party is a public officer with office in Manila at the time the offense
Ratio was committed, the venue is Manila or the city or province where the libelous
article is printed and first published.
It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the c. Where an offended party is a public official with office outside of Manila, the
complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts venue is the province or the city where he held office at the time of the
constituting the plaintiff's causes of action. In the case at bar, after examining the original commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first
complaint, we find that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case when the case was published.
filed before it. From the allegations thereof, respondent’s cause of action is for d. If an offended party is a private person, the venue is his place of residence at the
damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. Article time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and
360 of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is a Court of First Instance that is first published.
specifically designated to try a libel case.
The common feature of the foregoing rules is that whether the offended party is a public
Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. Hon. Florenz D. officer or a private person, he has always the option to file the action in the Court of First
Regalado, differentiated jurisdiction and venue as follows: Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed or first published.

a. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case; venue is the place We further restated the rules on venue in Article 360 as follows:
where the case is to be heard or tried;
b. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of procedural law; a. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal
c. Jurisdiction establishes a relation between the court and the subject matter; action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the
venue, a relation between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and respondent; libelous article is printed and first published.
and, b. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in
d. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be conferred by the parties; venue may be the Court of First Instance of the province where he actually resided at the time
conferred by the act or agreement of the parties. of the commission of the offense.
c. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the
In the case at bar, the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint that the article commission of the offense, the action may be filed in the Court of First Instance
and the caricature were printed and first published in the City of Makati referred only to of Manila.
the question of venue and not jurisdiction. These additional allegations would neither d. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action
confer jurisdiction on the RTC nor would respondent’s failure to include the same in the may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where he held
original complaint divest the lower court of its jurisdiction over the case. Respondent’s office at the time of the commission of the offense.
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. We fully agree with the Court of Appeals when it ruled: We note that the amended
complaint or amendment to the complaint was not intended to vest jurisdiction to the
In Laquian v. Baltazar, this Court construed the term "jurisdiction" in Article 360 of the lower court, where originally it had none. The amendment was merely to establish the
Revised Penal Code as referring to the place where actions for libel shall be filed or proper venue for the action. It is a well-established rule that venue has nothing to do
"venue." with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions. 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.
In Escribano v. Avila, pursuant to Republic Act No. 4363, we laid down the following
rules on the venue of the criminal and civil actions in written defamations.

a. General rule: The action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where
Consequently, by dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue, the lower court
had jurisdiction over the case. Apparently, the herein petitioners recognized this
jurisdiction by filing their answers to the complaint, albeit, questioning the propriety of
venue, instead of a motion to dismiss.

We so hold that 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.
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 quo’s jurisdiction,
of which it was never divested. In so doing, the court acted properly and without any
grave abuse of discretion.

It is elementary that objections to venue in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel may
be waived since they do not involve a question of jurisdiction. 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. 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. 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.

Petitioners’ 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. 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. This is
not to be because the case before us is a civil action where venue is not jurisdictional.

As discussed above, 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.