Professional Documents
Culture Documents
145022 September 23, 2005 offending news reports were printed and first published, the
ARMAND NOCUM and THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, original complaint, by reason of the deficiencies in its allegations,
INC., Petitioners, vs. LUCIO TAN, Respondent. failed to confer jurisdiction on the lower court.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Doctrine: Jurisdiction vs Venue; Venue can be waived in civil ISSUE: WON THE LOWER COURT ACQUIRED
cases JURISDICTION OVER THE CIVIL CASE UPON THE FILING OF
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FACTS: Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand
Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, ALPAP and Inquirer with the HELD: YES. It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based
Regional Trial Court of Makati, seeking moral and exemplary on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a
damages for the alleged malicious and defamatory imputations concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's
contained in a news article. INQUIRER and NOCUM alleged that causes of action. Here, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the
the venue was improperly laid, among many others. It appeared case when the case was filed before it. From the allegations
that the complaint failed to state the residence of the complainant thereof, respondent’s cause of action is for damages arising from
at the time of the alleged commission of the offense and the place libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. Article 360
where the libelous article was printed and first published. of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is the RTC that is
specifically designated to try a libel case.
RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the
ground of improper venue. Aggrieved, Lucio Tan filed an Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. The Hon.
Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal and Florenz D. Regalado, differentiated jurisdiction and venue as
admission of the amended complaint. In par. 2.01.1 of the follows: (a) Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine
amended complaint, it is alleged that "This article was printed and a case; venue is the place where the case is to be heard or
first published in the City of Makati", and in par. 2.04.1, that "This tried; (b) Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue,
caricature was printed and first published in the City of Makati" of procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation
between the court and the subject matter; venue, a relation
RTC admitted the amended complaint and deemed set between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
aside the previous order of dismissal stating that the mistake or respondent; and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot
deficiency in the original complaint appears now to have been be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the
cured in the Amended Complaint. Also, there is no substantial act or agreement of the parties.
amendment, but only formal, in the Amended Complaint which
would affect the defendants’ defenses and their Answers. Here, the additional allegations in the Amended Complaint
that the article and the caricature were printed and first published
Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. in the City of Makati referred only to the question of venue and
Two petitions for certiorari were filed, one filed by petitioners and not jurisdiction. These additional allegations would neither confer
the other by defendants .The two petitions were consolidated. CA jurisdiction on the RTC nor would respondent’s failure to include
affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, this PETREV filed by the same in the original complaint divest the lower court of its
the petitioners. Petitioners argue that since the original complaint jurisdiction over the case. Respondent’s failure to allege these
only contained the office address of respondent and not the allegations gave the lower court the power, upon motion by a
latter’s actual residence or the place where the allegedly party, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not
properly laid. The term "jurisdiction" in Article 360 of the Revised goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This is not to be
Penal Code as referring to the place where actions for libel shall because the case before us is a civil action where venue is not
be filed or "venue." The amendment was merely to establish the jurisdictional.
proper venue for the action. It is a well-established rule that venue
has nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions. CA’s DECISION AFFIRMED.
Assuming that venue were properly laid in the court where the
action was instituted, that would be procedural, not a jurisdictional RULE 4 – VENUE
impediment.
Venue of real actions A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any
time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a
This question has already been answered in Dacoycoy v. reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is served.
Intermediate Appellate Court, where this Court held that it may
not. The motu proprio dismissal of petitioner’s complaint by Amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed in furtherance of
respondent trial court on the ground of improper venue is plain justice, in order that every case may so far as possible be
error, obviously attributable to its inability to distinguish between determined on its real facts, and in order to speed the trial of
jurisdiction and venue. cases or prevent the circuitry of action and unnecessary expense.
The trial court, therefore, should have allowed the amendment
Questions or issues relating to venue of actions are basically proposed by petitioner for in so doing, it would have allowed the
governed by Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. Jurisdiction actual merits of the case to be speedily determined, without
over the subject matter or nature of an action is conferred only by regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and
law.[16] It may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court inexpensive manner.
which otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject
The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings a. RTC ordered payment of the principal claims of the
to avoid multiplicity of suits and in order that the real controversies Union.
between the parties are presented, their rights determined and
the case decided on the merits without unnecessary delay. This 4. The Liquidator filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, especially in Clarification of the order.
this case where the amendment to the complaint was made
a. DENIED!
before the trial of the case thereby giving petitioner all the time
allowed by law to answer and to prepare for trial. 5. The Liquidator filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for
Additional Time to Submit Record on Appeal.
a. The respondent judge disallowed Liquidator's
PACIFIC BANKING CORP vs CA Notice of Appeal on the ground that it was late.
(Filed more than 15 days after receipt of the
decision)
FACTS: [Consolidated Case]
6. *CA: Liquidator filed a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus
CASE#1 (union)(5th division) a. CA held in the case of the Union that the
proceeding before the RTC was a special
1. Pacific Banking Corporation (PaBC) was placed under proceeding and, therefore, the period for
receivership by the Central Bank of the Philippines and, appealing from any decision or final order rendered
was placed under liquidation. therein is 30 days.
a. A Liquidator was appointed. b. Since the notice of appeal was filed on the 30th day
of his receipt of the decision granting the Union's
2. RTC: the Central Bank filed a petition entitled "Petition for
claims, the appeal was brought on time.
Assistance in the Liquidation of Pacific Banking
Corporation." c. RTC should give due course to the appeal.
a. The petition was approved, after which creditors 7. *SC: The Union filed a petition
filed their claims with the court.
a. The union contends that the case is a special
3. Pacific Banking Corporation Employees Organization proceeding and that the appeal was filed out of
(Union), herein petitioner, filed a complaint-in- time.
intervention seeking payment of holiday pay, 13th month
pay differential, salary increase differential, Christmas
bonus, and cash equivalent of Sick Leave Benefit due its
members as employees of PaBC. CASE #2 (stockholders/investors)(14th divison)
1. *RTC: Ang Keong Lan and E.J. Ang Int'l., private allows multiple appeals, in which case the period of
respondent, filed claims for the payment of investment in appeal is 30 days and not 15 days from receipt of
the PaBC allegedly in the form of shares of stocks the order/judgment appealed from.
amounting to US$2,531,632.18.
a. Respondent judge directed the Liquidator to pay
private respondents as preferred creditors. ISSUE: Whether a petition for liquidation is a special proceeding
or an ordinary civil action
2. The Liquidator moved for reconsideration
a. DENIED!
HELD: SPECIAL PROCEEDING
3. The Liquidator filed a Notice of Appeal from the orders.
a. As in the case of the Union, however, the judge
ordered the Notice of Appeal stricken off the record Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provide:
on the ground that it had been filed without authority §1. Action defined. — Action means an ordinary suit in a court of
of the Central Bank and beyond 15 days. justice, by which the party prosecutes another for the
b. The judge directed the execution of his order enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
granting the Stockholders/ Investors' claim. of a wrong.