G.R. No. L-19596; October 30, 1964
LAVERN R. DILWEG, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROBERT O. PHILLIPS, INOCENTES DINEROS and ISAAC S. ECETA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Lavern R. Dilweg, a non-resident American citizen, filed a complaint for damages against the defendants-appellees in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The action was based on alleged libelous and defamatory statements uttered and published by the defendants in the Philippines. The complaint alleged six causes of action. The defendants initially moved to dismiss the complaint, but the trial court denied this motion. They subsequently filed their answers, which included counterclaims for damages against the plaintiff. The plaintiff answered these counterclaims.
During the trial on the merits, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss. The trial court granted this motion and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that the action was a personal one based on a tort defined as a crime under Philippine law. It held that since the plaintiff was a non-resident who had never been in the Philippines, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over his person. The court expressed concern that any judgment on the defendants’ counterclaims could not be enforced against the plaintiff, who had no property in the country.

ISSUE

Whether a non-resident alien can validly institute a personal action for damages based on a tort (libel) committed within the Philippines against residents therein.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that jurisdiction over the plaintiff in a civil case is acquired by the filing of the complaint, not by his physical presence or residence in the country. The action, being a personal and transitory one, follows the person of the defendant. Since the cause of action arose within Philippine territory and the defendants are within its jurisdiction, Philippine courts are open to the plaintiff for redress.
The Court found no Philippine law that restricts the right of a non-resident alien to sue in local courts for a cause of action that accrued within the Philippines. The governing law, Article 33 of the Civil Code, which allows an independent civil action for defamation, does not distinguish between citizens, residents, or aliens; it refers broadly to the “injured party.” The American doctrines cited by the trial court regarding jurisdiction over the person were inapplicable, as they pertained to jurisdiction over a defendant, not a plaintiff. The existence of counterclaims does not bar the action, as the Rules of Court provide remedies against non-resident defendants. The possibility of future difficulty in enforcing a potential judgment on the counterclaims does not affect the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.