GR 154338; (October, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154338 ; October 5, 2007
UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ALBERT LIM, doing business under the name and style “New H-R Grocery”, respondent.
FACTS
Universal Robina Corporation (URC) filed a complaint for sum of money against Albert Lim in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The RTC, Branch 227, dismissed the complaint motu proprio on grounds of improper venue and lack of jurisdiction, noting URC’s principal office was in Pasig City and Lim resided in Laoag City. URC filed a motion for reconsideration with an amended complaint, alleging a written venue stipulation in Quezon City. The RTC granted the motion, admitted the amended complaint, and later declared Lim in default for failure to answer. Subsequently, however, the RTC again dismissed the case motu proprio on the sole ground of improper venue, finding no connection between the parties and Quezon City and questioning the stipulation’s validity.
URC elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review. The CA dismissed the petition due to URC’s procedural lapse—failure to explain why service of copies was done by registered mail instead of personal service as required. URC’s motion for reconsideration was denied. URC then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether a trial court may dismiss a complaint motu proprio on the ground of improper venue.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that a trial court cannot dismiss a case motu proprio based on improper venue. Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, defenses and objections not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in an answer are deemed waived. The rule explicitly allows a court to dismiss a claim motu proprio only on specific grounds: lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, lis pendens, res judicata, or prescription. Improper venue is not among these enumerated grounds.
The legal logic is clear: improper venue is a waivable defense that must be raised seasonably by the defendant through a motion to dismiss; otherwise, it is deemed waived. The court cannot preempt this procedural right. Here, respondent Lim failed to file an answer and was declared in default, thereby losing his standing to challenge the venue. The RTC’s repeated motu proprio dismissals constituted a gross procedural error, as it shortcut the prescribed process. The Court emphasized that while expeditious resolution is desired, adherence to procedural rules to ensure fairness is paramount. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the CA Resolutions and ordered the RTC to reinstate the case and conduct an ex parte hearing.