GR L 5214; (August, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5214; August 21, 1953
INOCENCIO SIPIN and AGUEDA FONTANO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FILADELFO S. ROJAS, MARTIN OLSON, PACITA S. ROJAS, PERFECTO CRUZ and SALVADOR R. RIVERO, doing business under the name and style ROJAS EXPRESS, INC., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants, Inocencio Sipin and Agueda Fontano, are the parents and lawful heirs of Ambrosio Sipin, who was a bus conductor for the defendants-appellees. Ambrosio Sipin died as a result of a bus accident in the municipality of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, due to the recklessness of the chauffeur. The plaintiffs, who were partly dependent upon the deceased, filed an action in the justice of the peace court of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, to recover the sum of P1,274 as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The justice of the peace court dismissed the complaint on the ground of improper venue, holding that the action, being personal, must be brought in the municipal court of the City of Manila where the defendants reside. The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte affirmed this dismissal. The plaintiffs appealed, contending that section 88 of Republic Act No. 296 (the Judiciary Act of 1948) repealed the provisions on venue found in section 2(c), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the justice of the peace court of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, has venue over the action to recover compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, considering that the accident resulting in death occurred within its municipality but the defendants reside elsewhere.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. It held that the action to recover compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a personal action. As such, under the Rules of Court (specifically section 2(c), Rule 4), it must be brought in the court of the city or municipality where the defendant resides. The fact that the accident occurred in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, does not mean the cause of action “arose” there for the purpose of determining venue under section 88 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The phrase “arising in his municipality or city” in said Act refers to actions that may be brought considering the provisions on venue in the Rules of Court. Therefore, venue was improperly laid in the justice of the peace court of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. The order of the Court of First Instance affirming the dismissal is affirmed, without costs.