Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 254 views

    Davao Light and Power Co Inc. Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ma_cara
    1) Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against private respondent in the RTC of Cebu. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing improper venue, which was granted by the trial court. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that petitioner's principal office was in Cebu City based on its amended articles of incorporation and by-laws, making venue in Cebu City proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Davao Light and Power Co Inc. Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ma_cara
    254 views1 page
    1) Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against private respondent in the RTC of Cebu. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing improper venue, which was granted by the trial court. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that petitioner's principal office was in Cebu City based on its amended articles of incorporation and by-laws, making venue in Cebu City proper.

    Original Description:

    Civil Procedure . Venue.

    Original Title

    Davao Light and Power Co Inc. vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against private respondent in the RTC of Cebu. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing improper venue, which was granted by the trial court. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that petitioner's principal office was in Cebu City based on its amended articles of incorporation and by-laws, making venue in Cebu City proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    254 views1 page

    Davao Light and Power Co Inc. Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    ma_cara
    1) Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against private respondent in the RTC of Cebu. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing improper venue, which was granted by the trial court. 3) The Supreme Court reversed, finding that petitioner's principal office was in Cebu City based on its amended articles of incorporation and by-laws, making venue in Cebu City proper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO., INC. v.

    CA
    G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001

    FACTS:
    Petitioner in here filed a complaint for damages in the amount of 11M before the RTC
    of Cebu against respondent Francisco Tesorero. Private respondent filed a Motion to
    Dismiss on the ground of improper venue, hence the complaint was dismissed. The
    trial court ruled that the plaintiff being a private corporation undoubtedly Banilad,
    Cebu City is the plaintiff’s principal place of business as alleged in the complaint and
    which for purposes of venue is considered as its residence.

    However, in the said motion to dismiss, it is alleged that the principal office of plaintiff
    is at 163-165 Reyes Street, Davao City, as borne out by the Contract of Lease and
    another Contract of Lease of Generating Equipment executed by the plaintiff with the
    NAPOCOR. This then bars the plaintiff from denying the same. The Court is of the
    opinion that the principal office of plaintiff is at Davao City which for purposes of
    venue is the residence of plaintiff.

    Hence, the case should be filed in Davao City.


    Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
    Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to CA but was denied, hence elevated to SC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not venue was proper.

    HELD:
    Yes. The venue, Cebu City, was proper.
    It cannot be disputed that petitioner’s principal office is in Cebu City, per its amended
    articles of incorporation and by-laws. An action for damages being a personal action,
    venue is determined pursuant to Rule 4, section 2 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

    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.

    Private respondent is not a party to any of the contracts presented. He is a complete


    stranger to the covenants executed between petitioner and NAPOCOR, despite his
    protestations that he is privy thereto.

    The Court is not persuaded by his argument that the allegation or representation
    made by petitioner in either the complaints or answers it filed in several civil cases
    that its residence is in Davao City should estop it from filing the damage suit before
    the Cebu courts. Besides there is no showing that private respondent is a party in
    those civil cases or that he relied on such representation by petitioner.

    Petition is granted and appealed decision is reversed and set aside.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy