Doctrine:: Nocum Vs Lucio Tan GR No.145022 - 23 September 2005

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
Civil Procedure
3G - AY 2021-2022
NOCUM vs LUCIO TAN

GR No.145022 | 23 September 2005
Chico-Nazario, J.
DOCTRINE:
(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.
FACTS:
On September 27, 1998, Lucio Tan filed a complaint against reporter Armand Nocum, Capt. Florendo Umali, ALPAP and
Inquirer with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-2288, seeking moral and exemplary
damages for the alleged malicious and defamatory imputations contained in a news article. 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.
Petitioners state that Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code vests jurisdiction over all civil and criminal complaints for libel on
the RTC of the place: (1) where the libelous article was printed and first published; or (2) where the complainant, if a private
person, resides; or (3) where the complainant, if a public official, holds office. They argue that since the original complaint
only contained the office address of respondent and not the latter’s actual residence or the place where the allegedly
offending news reports were printed and first published, the original complaint, by reason of the deficiencies in its
allegations, failed to confer jurisdiction on the lower court.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the civil case upon the filing of the original complaint for damages.
YES
HELD:
It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a
concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff'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 Penal Code provides that it is a Court of First Instance that is specifically designated to try a
libel case.
Petitioners are confusing jurisdiction with venue. A 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 case. Respondent’s failure to allege these allegations gave the lower court
the power, upon motion by a party, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue was not properly laid.
In Laquian v. Baltazar, this Court construed the term "jurisdiction" in Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as referring to the
place where actions for libel shall be filed or "venue."
In Escribano v. Avila, pursuant to Republic Act No. 4363, we laid down the following rules on the venue of the criminal and
civil actions in written defamations.
1. General rule: The action may be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is
printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense.
2. If the offended party is a public officer with office in Manila at the time the offense was committed, the venue is Manila or
the city or province where the libelous article is printed and first published.
3. Where an offended party is a public official with office outside of Manila, the venue is the province or the city where he
held office at the time of the commission of the offense or where the libelous article is printed and first published.
4. If an offended party is a private person, the venue is his place of residence at the time of the commission of the offense or
where the libelous article is printed and first published.
The common feature of the foregoing rules is that whether the offended party is a public officer or a private person, he has
always the option to file the action in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed or
first published.
We further restated the rules on venue in Article 360 as follows:

1. Whether the offended party is a public official or a private person, the criminal action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published.
2. If the offended party is a private individual, the criminal action may also be filed in the Court of First Instance of the
province where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense.
3. If the offended party is a public officer whose office is in Manila at the time of the commission of the offense, the action
may be filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
4. If the offended party is a public officer holding office outside of Manila, the action may be filed in the Court of First
Instance of the province or city where he held office at the time of the commission of the offense.
We fully agree with the Court of Appeals when it ruled:

We note that the amended complaint or amendment to the complaint was not intended to vest jurisdiction to the lower court,
where originally it had none. The amendment was merely to establish the proper venue for the action. It is a well-established
rule that venue has nothing to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions. Assuming that venue were properly laid in the
court where the action was instituted, that would be procedural, not a jurisdictional impediment. In fact, in civil cases, venue
may be waived. Consequently, by dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue, the lower court had jurisdiction over
the case. Apparently, the herein petitioners recognized this jurisdiction by filing their answers to the complaint, albeit,
questioning the propriety of venue, instead of a motion to dismiss. We so hold that dismissal of the complaint by the lower
court was proper considering that the complaint, indeed, on its face, failed to allege neither the residence of the complainant
nor the place where the libelous article was printed and first published. Nevertheless, before the finality of the dismissal, the
same may still be amended as in fact the amended complaint was admitted, in view of the court a quo’s jurisdiction, of which
it was never divested. In so doing, the court acted properly and without any grave abuse of discretion.
It is elementary that objections to venue in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel may be waived since they do not involve a
question of jurisdiction. The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the
court over the person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction. It is a procedural, not a
jurisdictional, matter. It relates to the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be
brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court. It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their
access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial. In contrast, in criminal actions, it is fundamental that venue is
jurisdictional it being an essential element of jurisdiction.
Petitioners’ argument that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case because respondent failed to allege the place
where the libelous articles were printed and first published would have been tenable if the case filed were a criminal case.
The failure of the original complaint to contain such information would be fatal because this fact involves the issue of venue
which goes into the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This is not to be because the case before us is a civil action where
venue is not jurisdictional.
The cases cited by petitioners are not applicable here. These cases involve amendments on complaints that confer
jurisdiction on courts over which they originally had none. This is not true in the case at bar. As discussed above, the RTC
acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter upon the filing of the original complaint. It did not lose jurisdiction over the same
when it dismissed it on the ground of improper venue. The amendment merely laid down the proper venue of the case.

Doctrine:: Nocum Vs Lucio Tan GR No.145022 - 23 September 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine:: Nocum Vs Lucio Tan GR No.145022 - 23 September 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine:: Nocum Vs Lucio Tan GR No.145022 - 23 September 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

NOCUM vs LUCIO TAN

We further restated the rules on venue in Article 360 as follows:

We fully agree with the Court of Appeals when it ruled:

You might also like