ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 142040. May 10, 2000]

SPS. DOMINGO & MA. ESTELITA PANLILIO vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 10 2000.

G.R. No. 142040 (Spouses Domingo & Ma. Estelita Panlilio vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Spouse Domingo and Ma. Estelita Panlilio (petitioners), through this petition for review, seek to reverse and set aside the Resolution, dated 23 November 1999, of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the denial of petitioners' Motion to Dismiss (Amended Complaint). Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA in its Resolution, dated 15 February 2000.

Petitioners are defendants in the complaint for collection of sum of money filed by Dante Hernandez (private respondent) with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 162 of Pasig City. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that private respondent is engaged in the construction business and that upon a written contract entered into between them, private respondent undertook the construction of petitioners' two-story residential building. The complaint further alleged that despite repeated demands, petitioners refused, without cause, to pay their obligation to private respondent under the construction contract.

Petitioners moved for the dismissal of said complaint but their motion was denied by the trial court. After pre-trial, private respondent filed a Motion to Admit (Amended Complaint) because the original complaint erroneously alleged petitioners' address as Pasig City. The Amended Complaint corrected said error stating petitioners' address as Mandaluyong City. At any rate, according to private respondent in his motion, the venue is still properly laid in Pasig City as stipulated in the construction contract between the parties.

The trial court granted private respondent's motion and admitted the Amended Complaint. Petitioners then filed the Motion to Dismiss (Amended Complaint) on grounds of improper venue and that it was premature. In its Order, dated 12 October 1999, the trial court denied said motion holding that the venue was properly laid pursuant to the stipulation in the construction contract.

On petition for certiorari filed by petitioners, the CA affirmed the denial of petitioners' Motion to Dismiss (Amended Complaint). The CA denied due course to the petition for lack of formal and substantial merits. The CA found that the trial court correctly and without grave abuse of discretion denied petitioners' Motion to Dismiss (Amended Complaint) as venue was properly laid in Pasig City in accordance with the contractual stipulation.

In this petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, petitioners maintain that venue was improperly laid in Pasig City because the Amended Complaint alleges that private respondent's address is in Sucat, Para�aque, while petitioners reside in Mandaluyong City. Indeed, venue is determined by the allegations in the complaint. In this case, according to petitioners, the Amended Complaint does not allege that at least one of the parties resides in Pasig City; hence, venue was allegedly improperly laid therein.

The petition is devoid of merit.

Private respondent's Motion to Admit (Amended Complaint) expressly states that:

[T]here is need to amend the complaint to make it conform to the pertinent allegations in the answer. The plaintiffs [private respondent herein], through inadvertence and clerical error, committed a mistake in describing Defendants' [petitioners' herein] residence in Pasig City. At any rate, the venue in this action is properly laid in Pasig City as provided for in the Construction Contract (Annex "B"). 1 Rollo, p. 151.

The construction contract, which contained the stipulation on venue, was duly attached to the Amended Complaint filed by private respondent with the RTC, Branch 162 of Pasig City. The pertinent clause of said contract reads:

The parties hereto agreed that the venue of action for any cause or cause of action which arise from this contract shall be exclusively in the proper court of Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. 2 Id., at 169.

The foregoing allegations, albeit not contained in the Amended Complaint itself but in the attachments thereto, are sufficient to establish that venue has been properly laid in Pasig City. Indeed, "all documents attached to a complaint, the due execution and genuineness of which are not denied under oath by the defendant, must be considered as part of the complaint without need of introducing evidence thereon."3 City of Cebu vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 175 (1996).

Further, we quote with approval the following disquisition of the CA in this regard:

It is clear under Section 4 of Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure in relation to Section 2 of the same rule that the proper venue of an action may be that which is stipulated in a written agreement made by the parties before the filing of the action. The Contract for the Construction of Two-Storey Residence entered into by and between petitioners and private respondent and upon which the action before respondent trial court arises, manifests specific provision to file an action arising from the contract exclusively in Pasig City. Thus:

The parties hereto agree that the venue of action for any cause or cause of action which may rise from this contract shall be exclusively in the proper court of Pasig City, Metro Manila Philippines.

Without doubt, therefore, the filing of the complaint and the amended complaint before respondent Regional Trial Court of Pasig City is faithful to the contractual fiat as well as to law. Clearly, too, respondent court acted correctly and without grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss on ground of improper venue.

It may not be amiss to add that, contrary to petitioners' argument, venue need not be alleged in the complaint. The proper venue of an action whether established by virtue of the residence of either party or, as in this case, by contractual stipulation, need not be alleged in a civil action. Failure to make an allegation as to venue is not jurisdictional or formal or substantial deficiency. Neither does such omission remove an action from the province of the court.

Meanwhile, the issue of alleged prematurity of the action is evidentiary and a matter of defense which should be resolved by the trial court after proper proceedings. Again, respondent court acted correctly in denying the motion to dismiss anchored on said ground. 4 See Note 1 at 33.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE