Radiowealth v. Nolasco and Nolasco

Radiowealth v.
Nolasco and Nolasco

G.R. No. 227146, November 14, 2016
(difference between venue and jurisdiction)
FACTS:
On March 31, 2014, the respondents secured a loan from the petitioner in the amount of P1,908,360.00, payable in installments within a period
of 36 months, as evidenced by a Promissory Note executed on the same day. To secure the payment of the loan, the respondents constituted
a Chattel Mortgage over a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, the respondents defaulted in the payment of the installments which caused the entire
amount to become due and demandable. The petitioner repeatedly demanded but respondent even refused to surrender the possession of the
motor vehicle. Thus, on September 30, 2015, the petitioner filed a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages with Application for Writ of
Replevin with the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal.After an ex parte hearing, the RTC issued an Order dated March 28, 2016, directing the issuance of
the Writ of Replevin.
Subsequently, however, the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal issued an Amended Order dated July 21, 2016, dismissing motu proprio the
case for lack of jurisdiction. Citing Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it ruled that since neither the petitioner nor the
respondents reside within the jurisdiction of the trial court, that is, either in San Mateo or Rodriguez, Rizal, the case must be dismissed.On
August 16, 2016, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 12 arguing that the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal has jurisdiction over the case. It
pointed out that the sum of money involved amounting to P1,600,153.02 is well within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Further, the venue is also
proper, considering that there is a provision in the promissory note which states that any action to enforce payment of any sums due shall
exclusively be brought in the proper court within the National Capital Judicial Region or in any place where the petitioner has a branch or office
at its sole option. In an Order dated September 1, 2016, the RTC reiterated its earlier ruling and denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. The petitioner now comes before this Court, challenging the order of the RTC on pure questions of law.
ISSUE:
W/N the venue is improperly laid as neither the petitioner nor the respondent resides in Rizal.
HELD:
No. RTC confused the terms jurisdiction and venue which are completely different concepts.
Apparently, the RTC mistook jurisdiction for the more lenient concept of venue. To clarify, jurisdiction and venue are not synonymous concepts.
Primarily, jurisdiction is conferred by law and not subject to stipulation of the parties. It relates to the nature of the case. On the contrary, venue
pertains to the place where the case may be filed. Unlike jurisdiction, venue may be waived and subjected to the agreement of the parties
provided that it does not case them inconvenience.
Section 2, Rule 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which was relied upon by the RTC to support its ruling of dismissal, reads as follows:
Section 2. 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.
The foregoing provision is not restrictive. A plain reading of the provision shows that it is merely permissive as manifested by the use of the
term "may." Moreover, the clear language of the ensuing provision of Section 4 expressly allows the venue of personal actions to be subjected
to the stipulation of the parties.
Clearly, stipulation on venue is permitted and must be recognized for as long as it does not defeat the purpose of the Rules which primarily
aims for the convenience of the parties to the dispute.
There is, therefore, nothing that prohibits the parties to decide on a different venue for any dispute or action that may arise from their
agreement. In this case, in the promissory note executed and signed by the parties, there is a provision which states that "[a]ny action to
enforce payment of any sums due under this Note shall exclusively be brought in the proper court within the National Capital Judicial Region or
in any place where [the petitioner] has a branch/office, at its sole option." 18 Thus, the petitioner's filing of the case in San Mateo, Rizal, where it
maintains a branch is proper and should have been respected by the RTC especially when there appears no objection on the part of the
respondents.

Radiowealth v. Nolasco and Nolasco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radiowealth v. Nolasco and Nolasco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Radiowealth v. Nolasco and Nolasco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radiowealth v.

Nolasco and Nolasco

You might also like