G.R. No. 100748 February 3, 1997
JOSE BARITUA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL D. VICTORIO, Judge, RTC, Br. 53, Rosales-Pangasinan, and ROY. R. DOMINGO, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact Crispin A. Domingo, respondents.

FACTS

On June 26, 1989, private respondent Roy R. Domingo, represented by his attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint for damages arising from a quasi-delict against petitioner Jose Baritua, owner of J.B. Bus Lines, in the Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan. The complaint stemmed from a vehicular accident in Batangas on January 19, 1988. In his complaint, Domingo alleged he was a resident of Poblacion Rosales, Pangasinan, before leaving for the United States, where he “now lives” at a specified address in La Cañada, California. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, contending that since Domingo was a non-resident, the action should have been filed where the defendant resides, which he claimed was in Gubat, Sorsogon.
The trial court denied the motion, finding that Domingo was merely temporarily abroad and had not lost his legal residence in Rosales. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Petitioner thus elevated the case via certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the venue was improperly laid because Domingo was an actual resident of the United States at the time of filing.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan, was the proper venue for the personal action for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the appellate court’s decision, and ordered the dismissal of the complaint for improper venue. The Court explained that a complaint for damages is a personal action. Under Section 2(b), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, venue for personal actions lies either where the defendant resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff resides, at the plaintiff’s election. The term “resides” in the rule refers to actual residence or place of abode, meaning the personal, physical habitation where one actually lives with continuity and consistency. It is distinct from legal residence or domicile.
Applying this principle, the Court found that at the time the complaint was filed, private respondent Domingo was not an actual resident of Rosales, Pangasinan. The complaint itself admitted he “now lives” in California. He had left the Philippines on April 25, 1988, and executed a special power of attorney in Los Angeles on February 18, 1988, declaring himself a resident there. His stay in the United States was continuous and consistent for over a year before filing the suit. The temporary nature of his visa did not negate his actual residence abroad. Since neither party resided in Rosales when the action was commenced—Domingo resided in California, his attorney-in-fact in Quezon City, and Baritua’s residence or business was in Pasay City or Sorsogon—the plaintiff’s choice of venue in Rosales was improper. The option of venue granted to a plaintiff is not absolute and cannot be used to deprive a defendant of the rights conferred by the rules when the plaintiff does not actually reside in the chosen forum.