RULE 6 Civil Procedure Case no.

5
Kinds of Pleadings

G.R. No. 186993 August 22, 2012 favor of Attorney Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron (Atty. Aceron) for
THEODORE and NANCY ANG, represented by ELDRIGE the purpose of filing an action in court against the
MARVIN B. ACERON, Petitioners, respondents. On September 15, 2006, Atty. Aceron, in behalf
vs. of the petitioners, filed a Complaint 7 for collection of sum of
SPOUSES ALAN and EM ANG, Respondents. money with the RTC of Quezon City against the respondents.
On November 21, 2006, the respondents moved for the
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under dismissal of the complaint filed by the petitioners on the
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside grounds of improper venue and prescription. 8 Insisting that
the Decision1 dated August 28, 2008 and the Resolution 2 the venue of the petitioners action was improperly laid, the
dated February 20, 2009 rendered by the Court of Appeals respondents asserted that the complaint against them may
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101159. The assailed decision only be filed in the court of the place where either they or
annulled and set aside the Orders dated April 12, 2007 3 and the petitioners reside. They averred that they reside in
August 27, 20074 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City while the petitioners reside in Los Angeles,
Quezon City, Branch 81 in Civil Case No. Q-06-58834. California, USA. Thus, the respondents maintain, the filing of
the complaint against them in the RTC of Quezon City was
The Antecedent Facts improper.
On September 2, 1992, spouses Alan and Em Ang
(respondents) obtained a loan in the amount of Three The RTC Orders
Hundred Thousand U.S. Dollars (US$300,000.00) from On April 12, 2007, the RTC of Quezon City issued an Order 9
Theodore and Nancy Ang (petitioners). On even date, the which, inter alia, denied the respondents motion to dismiss.
respondents executed a promissory note 5 in favor of the In ruling against the respondents claim of improper venue,
petitioners wherein they promised to pay the latter the said the court explained that:
amount, with interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per Attached to the complaint is the Special Power of Attorney x
annum, upon demand. However, despite repeated demands, x x which clearly states that plaintiff Nancy Ang constituted
the respondents failed to pay the petitioners. Atty. Eldrige Marvin Aceron as her duly appointed attorney-
Thus, on August 28, 2006, the petitioners sent the in-fact to prosecute her claim against herein defendants.
respondents a demand letter asking them to pay their Considering that the address given by Atty. Aceron is in
outstanding debt which, at that time, already amounted to Quezon City, hence, being the plaintiff, venue of the action
Seven Hundred Nineteen Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy- may lie where he resides as provided in Section 2, Rule 4 of
One U.S. Dollars and Twenty-Three Cents (US$719,671.23), the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 10
inclusive of the ten percent (10%) annual interest that had The respondents sought reconsideration of the RTC Order
accumulated over the years. Notwithstanding the receipt of dated April 12, 2007, asserting that there is no law which
the said demand letter, the respondents still failed to settle allows the filing of a complaint in the court of the place
their loan obligation. where the representative, who was appointed as such by the
On August 6, 2006, the petitioners, who were then residing plaintiffs through a Special Power of Attorney, resides.11
in Los Angeles, California, United States of America (USA), The respondents motion for reconsideration was denied by
executed their respective Special Powers of Attorney 6 in the RTC of Quezon City in its Order12 dated August 27, 2007.

DAZZLE DUTERTE 1
RULE 6 Civil Procedure Case no. 5
Kinds of Pleadings

The respondents then filed with the CA a petition for Philippine courts, the case should have been filed in Bacolod
certiorari13 alleging in the main that, pursuant to Section 2, City where the defendants, herein petitioners, reside. Since
Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, the petitioners complaint may the case was filed in Quezon City, where the representative
only be filed in the court of the place where they or the of the plaintiffs resides, contrary to Sec. 2 of Rule 4 of the
petitioners reside. Considering that the petitioners reside in 1997 Rules of Court, the trial court should have dismissed
Los Angeles, California, USA, the respondents assert that the the case for improper venue.15
complaint below may only be filed in the RTC of Bacolod The petitioners sought a reconsideration of the Decision
City, the court of the place where they reside in the dated August 28, 2008, but it was denied by the CA in its
Philippines. Resolution dated February 20, 2009.16
The respondents further claimed that, the petitioners grant Hence, the instant petition.
of Special Power of Attorney in favor of Atty. Aceron
notwithstanding, the said complaint may not be filed in the Issue
court of the place where Atty. Aceron resides, i.e., RTC of In the instant petition, the petitioners submit this lone issue
Quezon City. They explained that Atty. Aceron, being merely for this Courts resolution:
a representative of the petitioners, is not the real party in WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
interest in the case below; accordingly, his residence should REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT THE
not be considered in determining the proper venue of the COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT
said complaint. VENUE WAS NOT PROPERLY LAID.17
The Courts Ruling
The CA Decision The petition is denied.
On August 28, 2008, the CA rendered the herein Decision, 14 Contrary to the CAs disposition, the petitioners maintain
which annulled and set aside the Orders dated April 12, that their complaint for collection of sum of money against
2007 and August 27, 2007 of the RTC of Quezon City and, the respondents may be filed in the RTC of Quezon City.
accordingly, directed the dismissal of the complaint filed by Invoking Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, they insist
the petitioners. The CA held that the complaint below should that Atty. Aceron, being their attorney-in-fact, is deemed a
have been filed in Bacolod City and not in Quezon City. Thus: real party in interest in the case below and can prosecute
As maybe clearly gleaned from the foregoing, the place of the same before the RTC. Such being the case, the
residence of the plaintiffs attorney-in-fact is of no moment petitioners assert, the said complaint for collection of sum of
when it comes to ascertaining the venue of cases filed in money may be filed in the court of the place where Atty.
behalf of the principal since what should be considered is Aceron resides, which is the RTC of Quezon City.
the residence of the real parties in interest, i.e., the plaintiff On the other hand, the respondents in their Comment 18
or the defendant, as the case may be. Residence is the assert that the petitioners are proscribed from filing their
permanent home the place to which, whenever absent for complaint in the RTC of Quezon City. They assert that the
business or pleasure, one intends to return. Residence is residence of Atty. Aceron, being merely a representative, is
vital when dealing with venue. Plaintiffs, herein private immaterial to the determination of the venue of the
respondents, being residents of Los Angeles, California, petitioners complaint.
U.S.A., which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of The petitioners complaint shouldhave been filed in

DAZZLE DUTERTE 2
RULE 6 Civil Procedure Case no. 5
Kinds of Pleadings

the RTC ofBacolod City, the court of the placewhere USA while the respondents reside in Bacolod City. Applying
the respondents reside, andnot in RTC of Quezon the foregoing principles, the petitioners complaint against
City. the respondents may only be filed in the RTC of Bacolod City
It is a legal truism that the rules on the venue of personal the court of the place where the respondents reside. The
actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and petitioners, being residents of Los Angeles, California, USA,
their witnesses. Equally settled, however, is the principle are not given the choice as to the venue of the filing of their
that choosing the venue of an action is not left to a complaint.
plaintiffs caprice; the matter is regulated by the Rules of Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible error when it
Court.19 annulled and set aside the orders of the RTC of Quezon City
The petitioners complaint for collection of sum of money and consequently dismissed the petitioners complaint
against the respondents is a personal action as it primarily against the respondents on the ground of improper venue.
seeks the enforcement of a contract. The Rules give the In this regard, it bears stressing that the situs for bringing
plaintiff the option of choosing where to file his complaint. real and personal civil actions is fixed by the Rules of Court
He can file it in the place (1) where he himself or any of to attain the greatest convenience possible to the litigants
them resides, or (2) where the defendant or any of the and their witnesses by affording them maximum
defendants resides or may be found. The plaintiff or the accessibility to the courts. 23 And even as the regulation of
defendant must be residents of the place where the action venue is primarily for the convenience of the plaintiff, as
has been instituted at the time the action is commenced. 20 attested by the fact that the choice of venue is given to him,
However, if the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, it should not be construed to unduly deprive a resident
the complaint in such case may only be filed in the court of defendant of the rights conferred upon him by the Rules of
the place where the defendant resides. In Cohen and Cohen Court.24
v. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd., 21 this Court held that there Atty. Aceron is not a real party ininterest in the case
can be no election as to the venue of the filing of a below; thus, hisresidence is immaterial to the venue
complaint when the plaintiff has no residence in the of the filing of the complaint.
Philippines. In such case, the complaint may only be filed in Contrary to the petitioners claim, Atty. Aceron, despite
the court of the place where the defendant resides. Thus: being the attorney-in-fact of the petitioners, is not a real
Section 377 provides that actions of this character "may be party in interest in the case below. Section 2, Rule 3 of the
brought in any province where the defendant or any Rules of Court reads:
necessary party defendant may reside or be found, or in any Sec. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest is the
province where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
at the election of the plaintiff." The plaintiff in this action has in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
no residence in the Philippine Islands. Only one of the Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every
parties to the action resides here. There can be, therefore, action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
no election by plaintiff as to the place of trial. It must be in real party in interest. (Emphasis ours)
the province where the defendant resides. x x x.22 (Emphasis Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means
ours) material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the
Here, the petitioners are residents of Los Angeles, California, decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere

DAZZLE DUTERTE 3
RULE 6 Civil Procedure Case no. 5
Kinds of Pleadings

curiosity about the question involved.25 A real party in the real party in interest. The said rule simply states that, in
interest is the party who, by the substantive law, has the actions which are allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
right sought to be enforced.26 representative, the beneficiary shall be deemed the real
Applying the foregoing rule, it is clear that Atty. Aceron is party in interest and, hence, should be included in the title
not a real party in interest in the case below as he does not of the case.
stand to be benefited or injured by any judgment therein. He Indeed, to construe the express requirement of residence
was merely appointed by the petitioners as their attorney-in- under the rules on venue as applicable to the attorney-in-
fact for the limited purpose of filing and prosecuting the fact of the plaintiff would abrogate the meaning of a "real
complaint against the respondents. Such appointment, party in interest", as defined in Section 2 of Rule 3 of the
however, does not mean that he is subrogated into the 1997 Rules of Court vis--vis Section 3 of the same Rule. 28
rights of petitioners and ought to be considered as a real On this score, the CA aptly observed that:
party in interest. As may be unerringly gleaned from the foregoing provisions,
Being merely a representative of the petitioners, Atty. there is nothing therein that expressly allows, much less
Aceron in his personal capacity does not have the right to implies that an action may be filed in the city or municipality
file the complaint below against the respondents. He may where either a representative or an attorney-in-fact of a real
only do so, as what he did, in behalf of the petitioners the party in interest resides. Sec. 3 of Rule 3 merely provides
real parties in interest. To stress, the right sought to be that the name or names of the person or persons being
enforced in the case below belongs to the petitioners and represented must be included in the title of the case and
not to Atty. Aceron. Clearly, an attorney-in-fact is not a real such person or persons shall be considered the real party in
party in interest.27 interest. In other words, the principal remains the true party
The petitioners reliance on Section 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of to the case and not the representative. Under the plain
Court to support their conclusion that Atty. Aceron is likewise meaning rule, or verba legis, if a statute is clear, plain and
a party in interest in the case below is misplaced. Section 3, free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides that: applied without interpretation. xxx29 (Citation omitted)
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the action is At this juncture, it bears stressing that the rules on venue,
allowed to be prosecuted and defended by a representative like the other procedural rules, are designed to insure a just
or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary and orderly administration of justice or the impartial and
shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed even-handed determination of every action and proceeding.
to be the real property in interest. A representative may be Obviously, this objective will not be attained if the plaintiff is
a trustee of an expert trust, a guardian, an executor or given unrestricted freedom to choose the court where he
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. may file his complaint or petition. The choice of venue
An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an should not be left to the plaintiff's whim or caprice. He may
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the be impelled by some ulterior motivation in choosing to file a
principal except when the contract involves things belonging case in a particular court even if not allowed by the rules on
to the principal. (Emphasis ours) venue.30
Nowhere in the rule cited above is it stated or, at the very WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
least implied, that the representative is likewise deemed as disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

DAZZLE DUTERTE 4
RULE 6 Civil Procedure Case no. 5
Kinds of Pleadings

August 28, 2008 and Resolution dated February 20, 2009

SO ORDERED.

DAZZLE DUTERTE 5