Go v. UCPB
Go v. UCPB
Go v. UCPB
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J : p
Respondent bank questioned said orders before the Court of Appeals via a
petition for certiorari 14 dated 03 January 2001, alleging that the trial court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing an order denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for
reconsideration thereof.
On 31 July 2002, the Court of Appeals 15 set aside the Orders dated 07
June 2000, 09 August 2000 and 08 November 2000 issued by the trial court and
directed the trial court to dismiss Civil Case No. 67878 on the ground of
improper venue.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner, 16 which was denied
in an order dated 14 November 2002. 17
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. 18
On 16 June 2003, the Court gave due course to the petition, and required
19the parties to file their respective memoranda. Respondents filed their Joint
Memorandum on 27 August 2003, while petitioner filed his on 25 September
2003 upon prior leave of court for extension. With leave of this Court, private
respondents filed their reply to petitioner's memorandum.
Personal action is one brought for the recovery of personal property, for
the enforcement of some contract or recovery of damages for its breach, or for
the recovery of damages for the commission of an injury to the person or
property. 22 The venue for personal actions is likewise the same for the regional
and municipal trial courts — the court of the place where the plaintiff or any of
the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, at the election of the plaintiff, as indicated in Section 2 of
Rule 4. 23
It is quite clear then that the controlling factor in determining venue for
cases of the above nature is the primary objective for which said cases are
filed. Thus:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed
decision dated 31 July 2002 and the Order dated 14 November 2002 denying
the motion for reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED. With costs. TIaDHE
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ ., concur.
Puno, J ., is on official leave.
Tinga, J ., is on leave.
26. G.R. No. L-55729, 28 March 1983, 121 SCRA 331, 336.
27. G.R. No. L-18692, 31 January 1963, 7 SCRA 202, cited in Torres v. M.
Tuason & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-19668, 22 October 1964, 12 SCRA 174, 177.
35. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Alejo, G.R. No. 141930, 10
September 2001, 364 SCRA 812.