GR L 19703; (January, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19703 January 30, 1967
CONSUELO V. CALO, MARCOS M. CALO and FLAVIO MAKINANO, petitioners, vs. BISLIG INDUSTRIES, INC., and JUDGE LUIS REYES OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Consuelo V. Calo and respondent Bislig Industries, Inc. are holders of adjacent forest concession licenses issued by the Bureau of Forestry. On October 26, 1961, Bislig filed a complaint for damages (Civil Case No. 48455) in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the petitioners, alleging that they encroached and logged within its concession area. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a cause of action due to non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The respondent judge denied these motions in orders dated January 15, 1962, March 7, 1962, and March 26, 1962. Bislig also filed an amended complaint alleging that the license issued to Consuelo V. Calo was null and void for being issued contrary to a constitutional prohibition (Marcos M. Calo was a congressman at the time). The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, claiming the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and without jurisdiction, arguing the action should have been filed in Agusan where the timber concessions are located.
ISSUE
Whether the suit filed by Bislig Industries, Inc. for damages arising from alleged illegal logging within its timber concession is an action in personam or in rem, which determines the proper venue.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It ruled that the main complaint is for recovery of damages suffered by Bislig due to the petitioners’ illegal logging operations within its concession. This action for damages is a personal action (in personam), not a real action. Therefore, it was properly filed in the City of Manila where Bislig has its main office, pursuant to the rules on venue. The Court cited the case of Hodges vs. Treasurer of the Philippines, which held that an action for damages arising from a public officer’s failure to perform a duty, even if involving real property, is a personal action that may be brought where the plaintiff resides. The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved.