SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 227147, July 30, 2018 ]

RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS.

ALFONSO O. PINEDA, JR., AND JOSEPHINE C. PINEDA,
RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

This is a direct recourse to the Court from the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal,
Branch 75 (RTC), through a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Amended
Order[1] dated July 21, 2016 and the Order[2] dated September 1, 2016 of the RTC in
Civil Case No. 2814-15 SM which dismissed petitioner Radiowealth Finance Company,
Inc.'s (petitioner) complaint for sum of money against respondents Alfonso O. Pineda,
Jr. and Josephine C. Pineda (respondents) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The Facts

In its Complaint[3] dated October 12, 2015, petitioner alleged that on October 23,
2014, it extended a loan to respondents, as evidenced by a Promissory Note,[4] in the
amount of P557,808.00 payable in 24 equal monthly installments of P23,242.00, which
was secured by a Chattel Mortgage[5] constituted on a vehicle owned by respondents.
Notably, the Promissory Note states that "[a]ny action to enforce payment of any sums
due under this Note shall exclusively be brought in the proper court within [the]
National Capital Judicial Region or in any place where Radiowealth Finance Company,
Inc. has a branch/office, a[t] its sole option."[6] Due to respondents' default, petitioner
demanded payment of the whole remaining balance of the loan, which stood at
P510,132.00 as of June 8, 2015, excluding penalty charges. As the demand went
unheeded, petitioner filed the instant suit for sum of money and damages with
application for a Writ of Replevin before the RTC, further alleging that it has a branch in
San Mateo, Rizal.[7]

The RTC Proceedings

In an Order[8] dated March 28, 2016, the RTC issued a Writ of Replevin, due to
respondents' continued failure to pay their monetary obligations to petitioner and/or
surrender their vehicle subject of the Chattel Mortgage.
However, in an Amended Order[9] dated July 21, 2016, the RTC recalled the Writ of
Replevin and ordered the dismissal of petitioner's complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction. It pointed out that since: (a) petitioner's principal place of business is in
Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila; and (b) respondents' residence is in Porac, Pampanga,
it has no jurisdiction over any of the party-litigants, warranting the dismissal of the
complaint.[10]

Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration,[11] which was, however, denied in an

Order[12] dated September 1, 2016; hence, this petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed
petitioner's complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

"Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to hear and determine a cause or the right to
act in a case. In addition to being conferred by the· Constitution and the law, the rule is
settled that a court's jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the relevant
allegations in the complaint, the law in effect when the action is filed, and the character
of the relief sought irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
claims asserted."[13] This is markedly different from the concept of venue, which only
pertains to the place or geographical location where a case is filed. In Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation v. Royal Ferry Services, Inc.,[14] the Court exhaustively
differentiated these concepts, to wit:

Petitioner confuses the concepts of jurisdiction and venue. In City of Lapu-

Lapu v. Phil. Economic Zone Authority:

On the one hand, jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine

cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question
belong." Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law. Thus, an
action may be filed only with the court or tribunal where the
Constitution or a statute says it can be brought. Objections to
jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be brought at any stage of
the proceedings, even on appeal. When a case is filed with a
court which has no jurisdiction over the action, the court shall
motu proprio dismiss the case.

On the other hand, venue is "the place of trial or geographical

location in which an action or proceeding should be brought." In
 civil cases, venue is a matter of procedural law. A party's
objections to venue must be brought at the earliest opportunity
either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer; otherwise the
objection shall be deemed waived. When the venue of a civil
action is improperly laid, the court cannot motu proprio dismiss
the case.

Wrong venue is merely a procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional

impediment. Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law, while venue is a
matter ofprocedurallaw.[15]

In this case, petitioner filed a complaint for, inter alia, sum of money involving the
amount of P510,132.00. Pursuant to Section 19 (8) of Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129,
[16] as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7691,[17] the RTC irrefragably

has jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint. Thus, it erred in dismissing petitioner's

complaint on the ground of its purported lack of jurisdiction.

Clearly, the RTC confused the concepts of jurisdiction and venue which, as already
discussed, are not synonymous with each other. Even assuming arguendo that the RTC
correctly pertained to venue, it still committed grave error in dismissing petitioner's
complaint, as will be explained hereunder.

Rule 4 of the Rules of Court governs the rules on venue of civil actions, to wit:

Rule 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS

Section 1. Venue of real actions. – Actions affecting title to or possession of

real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Section 2. Venue of personal actions. – All other actions may be commenced

and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the
case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of
the plaintiff.

Section 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. – If any of the defendants

does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
 personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in
the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the
place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion
thereof is situated or found.

Section 4. When Rule not applicable. – This Rule shall not apply –

(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides

otherwise; or
(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the
filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.

In Briones v. Court of Appeals,[18] the Court succinctly discussed the rule on venue,
including the import of restrictive stipulations on venue:

Based therefrom, the general rule is that the venue of real actions is the
court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated; while the venue of personal
actions is the court which has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the
defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. As an exception,
jurisprudence in Legaspi v. Rep. of the Phils. [(581 Phil. 381, 386 [2008])]
instructs that the parties, thru a written instrument, may either introduce
another venue where actions arising from such instrument may be filed, or
restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive venue, viz.:

The parties, however, are not precluded from agreeing in writing

on an exclusive venue, as qualified by Section 4 of the same rule.
Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the
sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed
upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file
their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the
places fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is
essential is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties
respecting the matter.

As regards restrictive stipulations on venue, jurisprudence

instructs that it must be shown that such stipulation is
exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive
words, such as "exclusively," "waiving for this purpose any other
venue," "shall only" preceding the designation of venue, "to the
exclusion of the other courts," or words of similar import, the
stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on
an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified
place.[19] (Emphases and underscoring in the original)
In this case, the venue stipulation found in the subject Promissory Note – which reads "
[a]ny action to enforce payment of any sums due under this Note shall exclusively be
brought in the proper court within [the] National Capital Judicial Region or in any place
where Radiowealth Finance Company, Inc. has a branch/office, a[t] its sole option"[20]
– is indeed restrictive in nature, considering that it effectively limits the venue of the
actions arising therefrom to the courts of: (a) the National Capital Judicial Region; or
(b) any place where petitioner has a branch/office. In light of petitioner's standing
allegation that it has a branch in San Mateo, Rizal, it appears that venue has been
properly laid, unless such allegation has been disputed and successfully rebutted later
on.

Finally, even if it appears that venue has been improperly laid, it is well-settled that the
courts may not motu proprio dismiss the case on the ground of improper venue.
Without any objection at the earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the
answer, it is deemed waived.[21] The Court's ruling in Radiowealth Finance Company,
Inc. v. Nolasco[22] is instructive on this matter, to wit:

Dismissing the complaint on the ground of improper venue is certainly not

the appropriate course of action at this stage of the proceeding, particularly
as venue, in inferior courts as well as in the Courts of First Instance (now
RTC), may be waived expressly or impliedly. Where defendant fails to
challenge timely the venue in a motion to dismiss as provided by
Section 4 of Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, and allows the trial to be
held and a decision to be rendered, be cannot on appeal or in a
special action be permitted to challenge belatedly the wrong venue,
which is deemed waived.

Thus, unless and until the defendant objects to the venue in a

motion to dismiss, the venue cannot be truly said to have been
improperlv laid, as for all practical intents and purposes, the venue,
though technically wrong, may be acceptable to the parties for
whose convenience the rules onvenue had been devised. The trial
court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the improper
laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case.[23] (Emphases and
underscoring supplied)

In sum, the RTC erred in motu proprio dismissing petitioner's complaint before it. As
such, the complaint must be reinstated, and thereafter, remanded to the RTC for
further proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Amended Order dated July 21, 2016 and
the Order dated September 1, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal,
Branch 75 in Civil Case No. 2814-15 SM are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, Civil Case No. 2814-15 SM is REINSTATED and REMANDED to the RTC
for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 21-22. Penned by Presiding Judge Beatrice A. Caunan-Medina.

[2] Id. at 23.

[3] Id. at 26-31.

[4] Id. at 36-37.

[5] Id. at 38-39.

[6] Id. at 37.

[7] See id. at 26-30.

[8] Id. at 42.

[9] Id. at 21-22.

[10] See id.

[11] See motion for reconsideration dated August 15, 2016; id. at 43-46.

[12] Id. at 23.

[13] Home Guaranty Corporation v. R-II Builders, Inc., 660 Phil. 517, 529 (2011).

[14] G.R. No. 188146, February 1, 2017, 816 SCRA 379.

[15] Id. at 396-397; citations omitted.

[16] Section 19 (8) of BP 129, entitled "THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF

1980," reads:

Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction:

xxxx
 (8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind. attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand,
exclusive of the abovementioned items, exceeds Two hundred thousand
pesos (P200,000.00).

[17] Section 5 of RA 7691, entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT

TRIAL COURTS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980,"' reads:

Section 5. After five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the
jurisdictional amounts mentioned in Sec. 19(3), (4), and (8); and Sec. 33(1)
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by this Act, shall be adjusted to
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00). Five (5) years thereafter, such
jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to Three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00): Provided. however, That in the case of Metro Manila,
the abovementioned jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted after five (5)
years from the effectivity of this Act to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400.000.00).

[18] 750 Phil. 891 (2015).

[19] Id. at 898-899; citations omitted.

[20] See rollo, p. 37.

[21] Radiowealth Finance Company, Inc. v. Nolasco, 799 Phil. 598, 605 (2016).

[22] Id.

[23] Id. at 605-606, citing Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 273 Phil. 1, 6-7

(1991).

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)