122. Ang, represented by Eldridge Marvin Aceron vs. Sps. Ang GR No.

186993 (2012)

PLAINTIFF: Theodore and Nancy Ang, represented by Eldridge Marvin Aceron

DEFENDANT: Spouses Alan and Em Ang
DATE: August 22, 2012
PONENTE: J. Reyes
TOPIC: Improperly Laid Venue

TYPE OF CASE: Rule 45

VENUE: Filed in RTC QC
CAUSE OF ACTION: Collection for sum of money
RESOLUTION:

Facts:

 That Spouses Alan and Em Ang owe the plaintiff spouses the amount of $300K
o Plaintiffs live in the US
o When the defendants failed to pay, despite being sent demand letters
o Plaintiff executed a SPA – designating Atty. Aceron as their duly designated representative to file for collection of
sum of money against the defendants in QC
 Atty. Aceron hold office on QC – he then filed the case in RTC QC
 Defendants filed a MTD, saying that the venue was improperly laid
o Since they were residents in Bacolod
o The plaintiffs reside in the US
o That since the plaintiffs were not residents of the Philippines
 The venue should be in Bacolod where the defendants live
 In civil actions, particularly personal civil actions where the nature of the case is enforcement of contract, venue, or the
place where the case should be filed, may either be the residence of the complaining party, the plaintiff or the residence of
the defendant at the option of the plaintiff
 RTC QC denied the MTD
o Since the representative hold office in QC, the case should be filed in QC
o MR was also denied by the RTC
 CA cited rules on venue in civil action, and said that the attorney, being a mere representative, is not the real party in
interest – that the plaintiffs is the real party in interest, therefore
o The matter of venue should be a choice between the residence of the petitioners or respondent.
o Since the plaintiff is not resided in the Philippines, there is no other choice but to file the case in Bacolod City –
where the defendants reside

Issue: W/N the venue where the case is filed correct, NO

Ruling:

It is a legal truism that the rules on venue of personal actions are fixed for the convenience of the plaintiffs and their witness. Equally
settled, however, is the principle that choosing the venue of action is not left to a plaintiff’s caprice; the matter is regulate by the
Rules of Court.

If the plaintiff does not reside in the Philippines, the complaint in such case may only be filed in the court of the place where the
defendant resides. There can be no election as to the venue of the filing of the complaint when the plaintiff has no residence in the
Philippines. The complaint may only be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides.