G.R. No.

L-22238 February 18, 1967

CLAVECILLIA RADIO SYSTEM, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, as
City Judge of the Municipal Court of Cagayan de Oro City and NEW CAGAYAN
GROCERY, respondents-appellees.

Facts:
New Cagayan Grocery filed a complaint for damages against CRS. They alleged that
CRS omitted the word NOT in the letter addressed to New Cagayan Grocery for
transmittal at Clavecilla, Cagayan de Oro branch. Such omission changed entirely
the content of the letter causing the addressee to suffer damages. CRS filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action and improper
venue. City Judge Antillon denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Hence,
CRS filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction praying that City
Judge Antillon be enjoined from proceeding with the case because of improper
venue. The lower court dismissed the case and held that CRS may be sued either in
Manila, where they hold their principal office, or in Cagayan de Oro City, where the
summons is served in their branch office. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, CRS
contended that the suit should be filed in Manila where they hold their principal
office.
Issue:
WON the case against CRS be filed in Manila where they hold their principal office.
Held:
Yes. It is clear that the damage is based upon tort and not upon a written contract.
Under par. (b)(3) Sec. 1 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, "the action is not upon a
written contract, then in the municipality where the defendant or any of the
defendants resides or may be served with summons." In Corporation law, it is
settled that the residence of the corporation is the place where the principal office is
established. Since CRS' principal office is in Manila, then the suit against it shall be
filed in Manila. Furthermore, the Court held in Evangelista vs. Santos, et al., that
the laying of the venue of an action is not left to plaintiff's caprice because the
matter is regulated by the Rules of Court. Applying the provision of the Rules of
Court, the venue in this case was improperly laid.