View full case

ANICETO G. SALUDO v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL

FACTS:

The petitioner, Aniceto G. Saludo Jr., filed a complaint for damages against American Express International, Inc. (AMEX) and its officers with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin City, Southern Leyte. The complaint alleges that Saludo's AMEX credit card and supplementary card were wrongfully dishonored by the respondents. Saludo claimed that the dishonor was a result of the respondents' unilateral act of suspending his account for failing to pay its balance. He alleged that he suffered inconvenience, mental anguish, and besmirched political and professional standing as a result. Saludo sought actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. AMEX and its officers denied the allegations and raised the defenses of lack of cause of action and improper venue. They argued that the venue was improperly laid because none of the parties were residents of Leyte. The respondents alleged that Saludo was not a resident of Southern Leyte as evidenced by his community tax certificate issued in Pasay City. Saludo opposed these allegations, asserting that as a congressman and member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Southern Leyte Chapter, he was a resident of Southern Leyte. The court a quo denied the affirmative defenses raised by the respondents, finding the allegations of the complaint sufficient to constitute a cause of action and ruling that the venue was properly laid.

Petitioner Saludo filed a complaint for damages against respondents Fish and Mascrinas in the Regional Trial Court of Southern Leyte. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue, arguing that petitioner was not a resident of Southern Leyte. However, the trial court denied their motion, stating that as a high-ranking government official in the province, petitioner's residence in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte was a matter of judicial notice. Respondents sought reconsideration but it was denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the appellate court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. The appellate court eventually granted respondents' petition, finding that venue was improperly laid because none of the parties was a resident of Southern Leyte. The court ruled that petitioner's residence was in Pasay City based on his community tax certificate and the location of his law office. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of petitioner's residence in Southern Leyte without evidence to support it.

The case involves a dispute over the proper venue for a civil action. Petitioner Saludo filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin City, Southern Leyte, against respondents. The respondents, however, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue since the parties were not residents of Maasin City, but of Pasay City and Makati City. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, prompting the respondents to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the case in Maasin City. It held that the choice of venue is not left to the caprice of the plaintiff and that the situs for bringing civil actions should consider the maximum accessibility to both the plaintiff and the defendant. The CA also expressed suspicion that the motive for filing the case in Maasin City was to vex and unduly inconvenience the respondents, considering petitioner Saludo's influential position as the incumbent congressman of Southern Leyte. Petitioner Saludo filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it. Thus, he filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, alleging errors committed by the CA in dismissing the complaint on the basis of improper venue.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether venue was improperly laid in Maasin City, Southern Leyte, on the ground that petitioner Saludo was not a resident therein at the time of filing the complaint.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that venue was properly laid in Maasin City, Southern Leyte.

    • The Supreme Court found that petitioner Saludo was the congressional representative of Southern Leyte at the time of the filing of his complaint. As such, he met the residency requirements, meaning he was indeed a resident of Southern Leyte for purposes of election law and, by extension, for purposes of venue.

    • The Court emphasized that for purposes of venue, "residence" should be understood in its popular sense, meaning the personal, actual, or physical habitation of a person.

    • The Court reversed and set aside the Decision dated May 22, 2003, and Resolution dated August 14, 2003, of the Court of Appeals, thereby reinstating the Orders dated September 10, 2001, and January 2, 2002, of the Regional Trial Court of Maasin City, Southern Leyte.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Venue for Personal Actions According to Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, venue for personal actions may be where the plaintiff or any principal plaintiff resides, or where the defendant or any principal defendant resides.

  • Residency vs. Domicile The term "residence" as employed in the rule on venue refers to the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary, of the plaintiff or the defendant, as distinguished from "domicile" which denotes a fixed permanent residence.

  • Judicial Notice Courts can take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, such as the fact that an incumbent congressman must meet the constitutional residency requirement.

  • Substantial Compliance A verification and certification of non-forum shopping that states the contents of the petition are true and correct of personal knowledge and belief and on the basis of records at hand constitutes substantial compliance.