GR 145022; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145022 September 23, 2005
ARMAND NOCUM and THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, INC., Petitioners, vs. LUCIO TAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lucio Tan filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Armand Nocum and the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Inc., among others, alleging that two articles contained malicious and defamatory imputations against him. The original complaint, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, failed to allege Tan’s residence or the place where the articles were printed and first published, facts essential for determining proper venue under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the RTC dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground of improper venue.
Thereafter, Tan filed an Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration and admission of an Amended Complaint. The amended pleading specifically alleged that the articles were “printed and first published in the City of Makati.” The RTC granted the motion, admitted the Amended Complaint, and effectively set aside its prior order of dismissal. Petitioners challenged this order via certiorari, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction upon dismissing the original complaint and could not thereafter admit an amendment to cure the jurisdictional defect.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC retained jurisdiction to admit the Amended Complaint after having dismissed the original complaint for improper venue.
RULING
Yes, the RTC retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. The original complaint, while deficient in stating facts for venue, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the RTC as a court of general jurisdiction. The dismissal for improper venue was without prejudice and did not attain finality; it was an interlocutory order that did not divest the court of its fundamental jurisdiction over the case.
The amendment was properly allowed under Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. The Court distinguished between jurisdiction over the subject matter and venue. The defect related to venue, not jurisdiction. Since the order of dismissal was not final, the court retained the authority to control its proceedings and correct errors. The amendment was merely formal, curing the omission regarding the place of printing and first publication, and did not alter the cause of action or prejudice the defendants’ substantive defenses. Therefore, the RTC acted within its discretion in admitting the Amended Complaint to ensure the substantive merits of the case could be heard.