Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5-Nocum Vs Tan
5-Nocum Vs Tan
5-Nocum Vs Tan
*
G.R. No. 145022. September 23, 2005.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
640
641
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
_______________
642
leged in nature; and (4) malice on their part was negated by the
publication in the same article of plaintiff’s or PAL’s side of the
dispute with the pilot’s union.
ALPAP and UMALI likewise filed their joint answer, dated
October 31, 1998, and alleged therein that: (1) the complaint
stated no cause of action; (2) venue was improperly laid; and (3)
plaintiff Lucio Tan was not a real party in interest. It appeared
that the complaint failed to state the residence of the complainant
at the time of the alleged commission of the offense and the place
where the libelous article was printed and first published.
Thus, the Regional Trial Court of Makati issued an Order
dated February 10, 1999, dismissing the complaint without
prejudice on the ground of improper venue.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, respondent Lucio
Tan filed an Omnibus Motion dated February 24, 1999, seeking
reconsideration of the dismissal and admission of the amended
complaint. In par. 2.01.1 of the amended complaint, it is alleged
that “This article was printed and first published in the City of
Makati” (p. 53, Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 55192), and in par. 2.04.1,
that “This caricature was printed and first published in the City of
Makati” (p. 55, Id.).
The lower court, after having the case dismissed for improper
venue, admitted the amended complaint and deemed set aside the
previous order of dismissal, supra, stating, inter alia, that:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
_______________
3 Id., at p. 147.
4 Id., at pp. 162-175.
5 Id., at pp. 185-194.
6 Entitled Airline Pilots Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Lucio
Tan, G.R. Nos. 145282-83.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
644
_______________
645
11
tiff’s causes of action. In the case at bar, after examining
the original complaint, we find that the RTC acquired
jurisdiction over the case when the case was filed before it.
From the allegations thereof, respondent’s cause of action
is for damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which
is vested with the RTC. Article 360 of the Revised 12
Penal
Code provides that it is a Court of First13 Instance that is
specifically designated to try a libel case.
Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. A 14
former colleague, the Hon. Florenz D. Regalado,
differentiated jurisdiction and venue as follows: (a)
Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a case;
venue is the place where the case is to be heard or tried; (b)
Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law; venue, of
procedural law; (c) Jurisdiction establishes a relation
between the court and the subject matter; venue, a relation
between plaintiff and defendant, or petitioner and
respondent; and, (d) Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot
be conferred by the parties; venue may be conferred by the
act or agreement of the parties.
In the case at bar, the additional allegations in the
Amended Complaint that the article and the caricature
were printed and first published in the City of Makati
referred only to the question of venue and not jurisdiction.
These additional allegations would neither confer
jurisdiction on the RTC nor would respondent’s failure to
include the same in the original complaint divest the lower
court of its jurisdiction over the
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
646
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
_______________
647
18
We further restated the rules on venue in Article 360 a s
follows:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
_______________
648
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
649
_______________
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 32, G.R. No. 123263, 16
December 1996, 265 SCRA 645; Unimaster Conglomeration, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 119657, 07 February 1997, 267 SCRA 759.
24 Rosario v. Carandang, 96 Phil. 845; Campos Rueda Corp. v. Bautista,
G.R. No. L-18453, 29 September 1962, 6 SCRA 240; Tamayo v. San Miguel
Brewery, Inc., G.R. No. L-17749, 31 January 1964, 10 SCRA 115; Gaspar
v. Dorado, G.R. No. L-17884, 29 November 1965, 15 SCRA 331; Versoza v.
Versoza, G.R. No. L-25609, 27 November 1968, 26 SCRA 78; Prudence
Realty and Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110274, 21
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
2/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 470
650
SO ORDERED.
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177831ceda7877ee4b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12