G.R. No. L-40428 December 17, 1975
FRANCISCO T. KOH, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., District Judge, Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, Branch I, and JOSE P. COLOMA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Jose P. Coloma filed a Complaint for damages against petitioner Francisco T. Koh in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, alleging he was a resident of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. Koh filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of improper venue and failure to state a cause of action, arguing Coloma was actually a resident of Metro Manila. The motion was denied by the trial court. Koh elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, but the appellate court dismissed his petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order and concurring that the question of residence is one of intent.
The dispute originated from a prior criminal complaint for estafa filed by Koh against Coloma in Pasig, Rizal, concerning a dishonored check. Coloma’s civil complaint for damages in Ilocos Norte alleged that Koh’s criminal complaint was malicious. Koh contended the venue was improperly laid because both parties resided in the Greater Manila Area, making Ilocos Norte an inconvenient forum. He also argued the complaint stated no cause of action, as the filing of a criminal complaint, absent proof of malice, does not give rise to damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss, specifically regarding the propriety of venue and the sufficiency of the cause of action.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. On venue, the Court held that for personal actions, the rule is that the action shall be filed in the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant at the election of the plaintiff. Residence means actual residence or place of abode, not necessarily legal domicile. The evidence, including Coloma’s own verified affidavit in the Pasig estafa case stating his address as Quezon City, and the fact that the dishonored check transaction occurred in Metro Manila, overwhelmingly demonstrated that Coloma was not an actual resident of Ilocos Norte. His claim of residence there was a deliberate attempt to lay venue in a distant and inconvenient forum to harass Koh, constituting forum-shopping. Therefore, venue was improperly laid.
On the sufficiency of the cause of action, the Court ruled that a criminal complaint filed in good faith, even if later dismissed, does not constitute a malicious prosecution. Coloma’s complaint failed to allege ultimate facts showing that Koh acted with malice or without probable cause in filing the estafa case. The dishonored check provided a factual basis for Koh’s criminal complaint. Consequently, the civil complaint for damages failed to state a cause of action. The trial court should have dismissed the case outright. The Supreme Court set aside the challenged orders and permanently restrained the trial court from proceeding with Civil Case No. 5011-1.