Saludo

v. American Express International, Inc.

G.R. No. 159507, 19 April 2006
CALLEJO, SR., J”

FACTS:
Petitioner Saludo filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
against American Express International, Inc. (AMEX) and/or officers Ian T. Fish, Vice-president and
Country Manager, and Dominic Mascrinas, head of operations. The complaint alleged that AMEX
wrongfully dishonored petitioner’s credit card and the supplementary card issued to his
daughter. In their answer, respondents specifically denied the allegations in the complaint and
further stated that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that the venue was
improperly laid because none of the parties was a resident of Leyte. They alleged that
petitioner was not a resident as shown by the fact that his community tax certificate was issued
in Pasay City. Moreover, the complaint was prepared in Pasay City and was signed by the lawyer in
the same city. Thus, respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint a quo. Petitioner
asserted that any allegation refuting his residency in Southern Leyte was baseless and unfounded
considering that he was the Congressman of the lone district at the time of the filing of his
complaint. He urged the court a quo to take judicial notice of this particular fact. Petitioner claimed
that as a member of Congress, he possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the constitution.
Regarding his community tax certificate, it was issued in that city because he has an office there and
the office messenger obtained the same in the said city. He claimed that the community tax
certificate is not determinative of one’s residence. The Court of quo sided with the petitioners
stating that the complaint was sufficient to constitute a cause of action against respondents as the
petitioner is an incumbent Congressman of the Lone District of Southern Leyte with residence in
Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte is enough to dispel any and all doubts about his actual residence.
Respondents sought for reconsideration but was denied. Respondents filed with the Court of
Appeal and it granted the respondents’ petition for review and ordered to set aside lower court’s
decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
WON the Court of Appeals committed error in holding that the venue was improperly laid in the
court a quo because not one of the parties, including petitioner Saludo, was a resident of Southern
Leyte.

RULING:
YES. The Court ruled that the complaint for damages by petitioner before the court of a quo is a
personal action and according to Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, states that the option of
plaintiff in personal actions recognized by the RTC is either the place where the defendant resides
or may be found or the place where plaintiff resides. If plaintiff chose the latter, he is limited to
that place. In this case, the court found petitioner as a plaintiff has opted to file a complaint with
the court a quo on the ground that he was a member of the House of Representatives and a resident
of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte to comply with the residency rule. In addition, the respondents
cannot rely on the Koh v. Court of Appeals ruling because the facts of the present case are not the
same. In this case, petitioner was the congressman or representative of Southern Leyte at the time
of filing of his complaint with the court a quo. Absent any evidence to the contrary, he is deemed to
possess the qualifications for the said position, including that the was a resident therein.
Following the definition of “residence” for purposes of election law, petitioner not only had the
intention to reside in Southern Leyte, but he also had personal presence therein. The latter element
was sufficient for petitioner Saludo to be considered a resident of Southern Leyte for purposes of
venue.
NOTES

Community tax certificate
- Indicated in petitioner’s complaint’s verification and certification of non-forum-shopping
- It was issued at Pasay City which was where the petitioner’s law firm was located.
Court a quo
- The court in which the matter was first heard
- The court from which an appeal or review is being heard.
Koh v. Court of Appeals
- The complaint was filed with the Court of First Instance in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte by
plaintiff who admitted that he was a resident of Kamias, Quezon City.
- Plaintiff did not establish that he was a resident of San Nicolas at the time of the filing of the
complaint.
Definition of Residence
1. For purposes of election
o Two elements strictly followed:
§ Intention to reside in the particular place
§ Personal and physical presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative
of such intention.
o DOMICILE is what the Constitution means when it speaks of residence for this
purpose.
2. For purposes of venue (such as this case)
o Less technical definition of residence
o The personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of
abode.
o Signifies physical presence in a. Place and actual stay thereat.
o This term merely means RESIDENCE

Residence – bodily presence
Domicile – bodily presence and intention to remain for an unlimited time.