In the Philippines, the choice of venue in filing a civil case is not solely at the plaintiff’s discretion. The Supreme Court clarified in this case that when a plaintiff resides outside the Philippines, the lawsuit must be filed where the defendant resides. This ensures fairness and convenience for the defendant, preventing plaintiffs from choosing inconvenient locations. The decision underscores that the residence of an attorney-in-fact is irrelevant for determining the proper venue, emphasizing that only the residence of the real party in interest—the actual plaintiff or defendant—matters for jurisdictional purposes.

Whose Home Turf Matters? Determining Venue When Plaintiffs Live Abroad

This case, Theodore and Nancy Ang v. Spouses Alan and Em Ang, revolves around a dispute over a loan of US$300,000. The petitioners, Theodore and Nancy Ang, who reside in Los Angeles, California, filed a collection case in Quezon City against the respondents, Spouses Alan and Em Ang, who reside in Bacolod City. The petitioners appointed Attorney Eldrige Marvin B. Aceron, a resident of Quezon City, as their attorney-in-fact. The central legal question is whether the venue was properly laid in Quezon City, given that the plaintiffs reside abroad and the defendant resides in Bacolod City.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Quezon City was an improper venue because they resided in Bacolod City, and the petitioners resided in the United States. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied the motion, reasoning that since the attorney-in-fact resided in Quezon City, the venue was proper. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, stating that the venue should be determined by the residence of the real parties in interest, not their representative. The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rules on venue to ensure fairness and convenience for the litigants.

The Supreme Court grounded its decision on the established principle that venue rules aim to provide the greatest convenience to the parties and their witnesses. Citing Hyatt Elevators and Escalators Corp. v. Goldstar Elevators, Phils., Inc., the Court reiterated that while venue selection is primarily for the plaintiff’s convenience, it is not an unbridled right. It must adhere to the Rules of Court. Specifically, the Court addressed the issue of whether an attorney-in-fact’s residence could determine venue, stating that the residence of the attorney-in-fact is not relevant when ascertaining the venue of cases filed on behalf of the principal.

The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs, being residents of Los Angeles, California, did not have the privilege to choose the venue. Instead, as clearly stated in Cohen and Cohen v. Benguet Commercial Co., Ltd.:

Section 377 provides that actions of this character “may be brought in any province where the defendant or any necessary party defendant may reside or be found, or in any province where the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.” The plaintiff in this action has no residence in the Philippine Islands. Only one of the parties to the action resides here. There can be, therefore, no election by plaintiff as to the place of trial. It must be in the province where the defendant resides. x x x.

Building on this principle, the Court clarified that the real party in interest is the one who benefits from or is injured by the judgment. The definition, as provided in Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, states:

Sec. 2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

The Court explained that the attorney-in-fact, Atty. Aceron, did not stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment. His role was limited to representing the Ang spouses. In other words, the right sought to be enforced belonged to the Ang spouses, not Atty. Aceron. The Court thereby concluded that an attorney-in-fact is not a real party in interest, and the venue should not be based on their residence. The Supreme Court underscored that the rules on venue are designed to ensure a just and orderly administration of justice.

The decision in Ang v. Ang has significant implications for civil litigation in the Philippines, particularly for cases involving parties residing abroad. It provides a clear guideline on venue, emphasizing that the residence of the real parties in interest—either the plaintiff or the defendant—is the primary factor in determining the proper venue. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rules are in place to facilitate justice and convenience for all parties involved, preventing any undue advantage based on arbitrary venue selection. As such, the courts will look at the facts and base their judgment on what they see fit.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the venue of a collection case was properly laid in Quezon City, where the plaintiffs’ attorney-in-fact resided, when the plaintiffs resided abroad and the defendants resided in Bacolod City.
Who are the real parties in interest in a lawsuit?	A real party in interest is the party who stands to benefit or be injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, as defined by Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
Can the residence of an attorney-in-fact determine the venue of a case?	No, the residence of an attorney-in-fact is not considered when determining the venue of a case. The venue should be based on the residence of the real parties in interest—either the plaintiff or the defendant.
What happens if the plaintiff resides outside the Philippines?	If the plaintiff resides outside the Philippines, the case must be filed in the court of the place where the defendant resides. The plaintiff does not have the option to choose the venue.
Why are venue rules important?	Venue rules are designed to ensure a just and orderly administration of justice. They aim to provide the greatest convenience to the litigants and their witnesses by affording them maximum accessibility to the courts.
What is a personal action?	A personal action is a lawsuit that primarily seeks the enforcement of a contract or recovery of personal property. The plaintiff has the option to file the case where they or the defendant resides.
What rule governs venue if plaintiff resides abroad?	If the plaintiff lives abroad, the action must be filed where the defendant resides. This is a limitation on plaintiff’s choice to ensure fairness.
Is an attorney-in-fact a real party in interest?	No, the attorney-in-fact is not a real party in interest. An attorney-in-fact is merely an agent or representative of the real party in interest, not a beneficiary.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ang v. Ang serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural rules in civil litigation. The ruling underscores the principle that venue should be based on the residence of the real parties in interest, ensuring fairness and convenience for all involved. This guidance helps to prevent potential abuse and promotes a more equitable legal process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Theodore and Nancy Ang v. Spouses Alan and Em Ang, G.R. No. 186993, August 22, 2012