GR L 17707; (October,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17707; October 27, 1961
MANUEL F. PORTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. LUIS B. REYES, Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila and CESAR RAMIREZ, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Cesar Ramirez filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner Manuel F. Portillo in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The complaint alleged Ramirez’s residence as Quezon City but did not state Portillo’s residence, only indicating that summons could be served on him “c/o Boulevard Theatre, Quezon Boulevard, Manila.” Portillo filed a verified motion to dismiss, asserting his domicile was in Caloocan, Rizal, and arguing that since neither party resided in Manila, the venue was improperly laid. The respondent judge denied this motion, prompting Portillo to file the present petition for prohibition to enjoin further proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila properly acquired venue over the action for sum of money against a defendant domiciled outside Manila.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, ruling that venue was improperly laid. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, which states that civil actions may be commenced “where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.” The respondents argued the phrase “or may be found” authorized suit where the defendant could be physically located when the complaint was filed. The Court rejected this, clarifying that for a defendant who is a resident of the Philippines, the terms “residence” and “found” are synonymous and mean “domicile,” as established in Evangelista vs. Santos and Cohen vs. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd. This construction limits “may be found” to apply only to defendants with no residence in the Philippines. Since Portillo was domiciled in Caloocan, Rizal, and the plaintiff resided in Quezon City, neither condition for proper venue in Manila was met. The Court further noted that even if a plaintiff is unaware of a defendant’s residence, the remedy is to file the action in the court of the plaintiff’s own residence, not to select a forum based on where the defendant might be transiently found. This balances the plaintiff’s convenience in choosing venue with the defendant’s right not to be sued in a place unrelated to his domicile. The complaint was ordered dismissed without prejudice to filing in the proper court.