03 Universal Robina Corp v.

Lim
GR. No. 154388 (2007)
J. Sandoval-Gutierrez / Tita K

Subject Matter: Rule 4; Venue

Case Summary: Universal Robina filed a complaint for a sum of money against Lim. However, this was dismissed motu
proprio by the RTC on the ground of improver venue. The SC, however, ruled that the RTC erred in dismissing Universal
Robina’s complaint motu proprio because improper venue, when not raised as an objection, is deemed waived. The RTC
should have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading from respondent, raising the objection or affirmative
defense of improper venue, before dismissing the petition.

Doctrine/s:
In personal actions, the plaintiff may commence an action either in the place of his or her residence or the place where the
defendant resides. However, the parties may agree to a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them
resides.

Improper venue not impleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived.

The court may only dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia,
res judicata and prescription.

Action Before SC: “This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court”

Parties:
Petitioner Universal Robina Corporation (UR)

Respondent Albert Lim, doing business under the name and style “New H-R Grocery”

Antecedent Facts:
1. The petitioner and respondent entered into a contract of sale where Universal Robina sold to Lim grocery
products in the total amount of P808,059.88.
2. It was allegedly stipulated in that contract that the proper venue for any dispute relative to the transaction is
Quezon City.
3. Lim tendered partial payments, but refused to pay the balance despite petitioner’s repeated demands.

1st Level Court Proceedings

RTC
1. Action: Petitioner filed with the RTC Quezon City a complaint against respondent for a sum of money.
2. Ruling: RTC dismissed the complaint motu proprio on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue.

RTC ruled that there is no connection between the parties and Quezon City, where the RTC sits, because
Universal Robina’s principal office is in Pasig City and Albert Lim is from Laoag City.

3. MR #1: Petitioner moved for reconsideration and filed an amended complaint alleging that the parties agreed that
the proper venue for any dispute relative to the transaction is Quezon City.
4. MR #1 ruling: RTC granted the motion and admitted petitioner’s amended complaint.

Note that: Summons was served upon respondent. However, respondent failed to file an answer
seasonably. The trial court declared him in default and allowing petitioner to present its evidence ex parte.

The RTC, still unsure whether venue was properly laid, again dismissed the complaint on the ground of improper
venue.
RTC held that it was stipulated in the complaint that the UR’s principal office is in Pasig City while Lim’s
residence is in Laoag City. The complaint, however, did not state that ‘the filing is based on the stipulation
at the back of the delivery receipt that venue shall be in Quezon City’ as alleged by the petitioner.

5. MR #2: Petitioner again filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.

Appellate Court Proceedings

CA
6. Action: Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA.
 7. Ruling: CA dismissed the petition due to petitioner’s violation of Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended. Petitioner failed to attach thereto an explanation why copies of the petition were not
served by personal service but by registered mail.
8. MR: Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was likewise denied.
CA ruled that subsequent compliance with the requirements of a petition for review/certiorari shall not
warrant reconsideration unless there are compelling reasons to warrant reconsideration. The CA found
the questions raised in the petition unsubstantial to require consideration.

Issues:
1. WON the trial court may dismiss motu proprio petitioner’s complaint on the ground of improper venue. –
NO
Ratio:

NO – The trial court cannot dismiss motu proprio petitioner’s complaint on the ground of improper venue.
 General Rule:
Sec. 2. Rule 4. 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.

 Exception:
Sec. 4. When Rule not applicable.—This Rule shall not apply—
(a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or 

(b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof.”

 Clearly, in personal actions, the plaintiff may commence an action either in the place of his or her
residence or the place where the defendant resides. However, the parties may agree to a specific venue
which could be in a place where neither of them resides.

 Corollarily, it is implicit from Sec. 11 Rule 9 (Civpro Rules) that improper venue not impleaded in the motion to
dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived.

 Thus, a court may not dismiss an action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the
grounds wherein the court may dismiss an action motu pro-prio on the basis of the pleadings.

 The court may only dismiss an action motu proprio in case of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
litis pendentia, res judicata and prescription.

o Therefore, the trial court in this case erred when it dismissed the petition motu proprio. It should
have waited for a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading from respondent, raising the
objection or affirmative defense of improper venue, before dismissing the petition.

o The respondent failed to file an answer and was thus declared in default by the trial court. Verily,
having been declared in default, he lost his standing in court and his right to adduce evidence and
present his defense including his right to question the propriety of the venue of the action.

Dispositive: Wherefore, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 67368 are REVERSED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 227, Quezon City is ordered to REINSTATE Civil
Case No. Q-99-37791 and conduct an ex parte hearing for the reception of petitioner’s evidence and dispose of the case
with dispatch.

1Sec. 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded.—Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived.
However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another
action pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall
dismiss the claim.