G.R. No. 106847. March 5, 1993.
PATRICIO P. DIAZ, petitioner, vs. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RTC, Br. 8, Marawi City, SULTAN MACORRO L. MACUMBAL, SULTAN LINOG M. INDOL, MACABANGKIT LANTO and MOHAMADALI ABEDIN, respondents.

FACTS

On July 16, 1991, the Mindanao Kris, a newspaper published in Cotabato City, printed and first published articles captioned “6-Point Complaint Filed vs. Macumbal” and “Toll of Corruption,” which exposed alleged anomalies by key officials in the Regional Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The public officers alluded to, private respondents Sultan Macorro L. Macumbal, Sultan Linog M. Indol, Macabangkit Lanto, and Mohamadali Abedin, instituted separate criminal and civil complaints for damages arising from libel before the City Prosecutor’s Office and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Marawi City on July 22, 1991. Petitioner Patricio P. Diaz, the publisher-editor, was named a respondent. The City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the criminal case on September 2, 1991, for lack of jurisdiction, stating it should be filed in Cotabato City where the complainant held office. Meanwhile, the civil case (Civil Case No. 385-91) was raffled to Branch 10 of the RTC in Marawi City, where the defendants, including Diaz, filed their respective Answers with Counterclaim. On November 18, 1991, petitioner Diaz moved to dismiss the civil action for damages on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter, arguing the complaint should have been filed in Cotabato City, not Marawi City. The presiding judge of Branch 10 inhibited himself, and the case was reraffled to respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong. On June 15, 1992, respondent judge denied the Motion to Dismiss, and a motion for reconsideration was also denied on August 27, 1992, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court of Marawi City acquired jurisdiction to hear and decide the civil action for damages arising from libel despite the venue being improperly laid, considering that the petitioner had already filed an Answer with Counterclaim before moving to dismiss on the ground of improper venue.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the Petition for Certiorari. The Court held that while venue was improperly laid in Marawi City for the civil action for damages arising from libel, the petitioner waived his objection to the improper venue by filing an Answer with Counterclaim before raising the issue in a motion to dismiss.
The Court explained that under Article 360, third paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4363, an offended party who is a public official can only institute an action arising from libel in two venues: (1) the place where he holds office, or (2) the place where the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published. In this case, none of the private respondents held office in Marawi City at the time of the offense (Macumbal, Lanto, and Abedin held office in Cotabato City; Indol in Lanao del Norte), and the libelous articles were printed and first published in Cotabato City. Therefore, Marawi City was not a proper venue.
However, the Court ruled that objections to improper venue must be made in a motion to dismiss before any responsive pleading is filed, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. A responsive pleading seeks affirmative relief and sets up defenses, such as an Answer with Counterclaim. By filing his Answer with Counterclaim, petitioner Diaz submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and waived his right to object to the venue. Improper venue is procedural and relates to jurisdiction over the person, not subject matter; it is waivable and must be seasonably raised. Consequently, the trial court retained jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.