Scribd
Upload
36 views

Esuerte v. CA

Uploaded by

Chino Sison
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
36 views

Esuerte v. CA

Uploaded by

Chino Sison
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Esuerte v.

CA
G.R. No. L-53485, February 6, 1991
Medialdea, J.
First Division

Facts: 

An action for damages was filed by private respondent Beverly Tan against herein petitioners Patria
Esuerte and Herminia Jayme with the Court of First Instance. 

On September 22, 23 and 27, 1978, private respondent Ma. Beverly Tan, a Junior Resident Physician of
Corazon Locsin-Montelibano Memorial Hospital, Bacolod City, without any justifiable reason shouted at,
humiliated and insulted the petitioner, Patria Esuerte, Head Nurse, Medicare Department of the said hospital and
as a result of the said incident, said petitioner complained to the Chief of the Hospital, Dr. Teodoro P. Motus, in
writing. The other petitioner, Herminia Jayme, who was one of those who were present at the time of the incident
also sent a letter to the Chief of the Hospital, Dr. Teodoro Motus, informing the latter of what she had witnessed.
As a result thereof, private respondent was advised to explain in writing by the Chief of the Hospital, but private
respondent instead of explaining only her side of the incident also complained against the petitioners. 

Later, the Chief of the Hospital, Dr. Teodoro P. Motus, issued a resolution dated November 8, 1978,
transmitting the records of the case to the Regional Health Office, No. 6, Jaro, Iloilo City for appropriate action

Motion to Dismiss by the Petitioners:

Esuerte and Jayme filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue and for being
premature for failure of Tan to exhaust administrative remedies. On January 2, 1979, the trial court denied the
motion to dismiss. The motion for reconsideration of the denial was likewise denied by the court.

Certiorari by the Petitioners:

Esuerte and Jayme filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction with the
Court of Appeals. On September 18, 1979, the petition was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.

Issue:

Whether or not there was improper venue


Whether or not the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is applicable in the case at bar

Held:

Yes (Justice will better be served daw if sa Bacolod), No

Ratio:

1.

It is the contention of petitioners that the proper venue of the action filed by Tan should be Bacolod City and not
Cebu City. At the time of the filing of her action in court, Tan was actually residing and may be found in Bacolod
City.
Section 2(b), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 2. Venue in Courts of First Instance. —

x x x           x x x          x x x

(b) Personal Actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendants or any of
the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the
election of the plaintiff.

The choice of venue for personal actions cognizable by the Regional Trial Court is given to the plaintiff but not to
the plaintiff's caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court
The option of the plaintiff in personal actions cognizable by the Regional Trial Court is either the place where the
defendant resides or may be found or the place where the plaintiff resides. If plaintiff opts for the latter, he is
limited to that place.

"Resides" in the rules on venue on personal actions means the place of abode, whether permanent or temporary,
of the plaintiff or defendants as distinguished from "domicile" which denotes a fixed permanent residence. And, in
Hernandez v. Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc., G.R. No. L-29791, January 10, 1978, 81 SCRA 75), venue of personal
actions should be at the place of abode or place where plaintiffs actually reside, not in domicile or legal residence.

As perspicaciously observed by Justice Moreland, the purpose of procedure is not to restrict the court's jurisdiction
over the subject matter but to give it effective facility "in righteous action," "to facilitate and promote the
administration of justice" or to insure "just judgments" by means of a fair hearing. If the objective is not achieved,
then "the administration of justice becomes incomplete and unsatisfactory and lays itself open to criticism."

There is no question that private respondent as plaintiff in the Civil Case is a legal resident of Cebu City. Her
parents live there. However, it cannot also be denied that at the time of her filing of the complaint against
petitioners, she was a temporary resident of Bacolod City. She was then employed with the Corazon Locsin
Montelibano Memorial Hospital, Bacolod City, as resident physician. Moreover, the acts complained of were
committed in Bacolod City. The private respondents were all residents of Bacolod City at the time of the bringing of
the action. Though Tan's employment was only temporary there was no showing when this employment will end.
Justice would be better served if the complaint were heard and tried in Bacolod City where all the parties resided.

2. 

The alleged need by private respondent Tan to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the complaint for
damages does not apply to the instant case. The cause of action in the administrative case is different from that of
the civil case for damages. While the complainant in the administrative case may be a private person, it is the
government who is the aggrieved party and no award for damages may be granted in favor of private persons. The
civil action for damages can proceed notwithstanding the pendency of the administrative action.

You might also like