Saludo v.
American Express
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari.
Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. is a member of House of Representatives representing Southern Leyte.
He is also a holder of an American Express credit card. A supplementary card is also issued in
favor of her daughter.
Saludo filed a complaint for damages against AMEX before the Regional Trial Court of Maasin
City, Southern Leyte. His cause of action stemmed from the alleged wrongful dishonor of his
AMEX card and of his daughter.
Saludo claimed that he suffered great inconvenience, wounded feelings, mental anguish,
embarrassment, humiliation and besmirched political and professional standing as a result of
respondents' acts. He is asking for damages.
AMEX denied the allegations in the complaint. AMEX raised the affirmative defenses of lack of
cause of action and improper venue. AMEX averred that the complaint should be dismissed on
the ground that venue was improperly laid because none of the parties was a resident of
Leyte. That Saludo’s community tax certificate, which was presented when he executed the
complaint's verification and certification of non-forum shopping, was issued at Pasay City.
Saludo asserted that any allegation refuting his residency in Southern Leyte was baseless and
unfounded considering that he was the congressman of the lone district thereof at the time of
the filing of his complaint. He urged the court a quo to take judicial notice of this particular
fact. As a member of Congress, he possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the
Constitution including that of being a resident of his district.
The trial court denied AMEX affirmative defense that venue was improperly laid. It held that
the fact alone that the plaintiff at the time he filed the complaint was and still is, the
incumbent Congressman of the Lone District of Southern Leyte with residence at Ichon,
Macrohon, Southern Leyte, is enough to dispell any and all doubts about his actual residence.
As such his personal, actual and physical habitation or his actual residence or place of abode
can never be in some other place but in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte. Residence, for
purposes of fixing venue of an action, is synonymous with domicile. This is defined as the
permanent home, the place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to
return, and depends on the facts and circumstances, in the sense that they disclose intent. A
person can have but one domicile at a time. A man can have but one domicile for one and the
same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. Venue could be at
place of his residence.
AMEX sought for reconsideration but the trial court denied its motion.
AMEX then filed with the appellate court a petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge of the trial court.
Appellate court rendered its decision granting AMEX petition for certiorari and held that
venue was improperly laid. It directed the trial court to dismiss the complaint.
According to the appellate court, for purposes of venue, the residence of a person is his
personal, actual or physical habitation, or his actual residence or place of abode, which may
not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides therein with continuity
and consistency.
In holding that petitioner Saludo is not a resident of Maasin City, Southern Leyte, the
appellate court referred to his community tax certificate, as indicated in his complaint's
verification and certification of non-forum shopping, which was issued at Pasay City.
The appellate court held that, based on his complaint, Saludo was actually residing in Pasay
City. It faulted him for filing his complaint with RTC of Leyte when the said venue is
inconvenient to the parties to the case. It opined that under the rules, the possible choices of
venue are Pasay City or Makati City, or any place in the National Capital Judicial Region, at
the option of petitioner Saludo.
Saludo sought the reconsideration of the said decision but the appellate court denied his
motion for reconsideration.
Saludo filed this instant petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellate court committed reversible error in holding that venue was
improperly laid in the RTC of Southern Leyte because not one of the parties was a resident of
Southern Leyte at the time of filing of the complaint?
Held:
The petition is meritorious.
Petitioner Saludo's complaint for damages against respondents before the court a quo is a
personal action.
Since petitioner Saludo, as congressman of the lone representative of the district of Southern
Leyte, had his residence (or domicile) therein as the term is construed in relation to election
laws, necessarily, he is also deemed to have had his residence therein for purposes of venue for
filing personal actions. Put in another manner, Southern Leyte, as the domicile of petitioner
Saludo, was also his residence, as the term is understood in its popular sense. This is because
"residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for
an unlimited time."
In contrast, petitioner Saludo was the congressman or representative of Southern Leyte at the
time of filing of his complaint with the court a quo. Absent any evidence to the contrary, he is
deemed to possess the qualifications for the said position, including that he was a resident
therein. And following the definition of the term "residence" for purposes of election law,
petitioner Saludo not only had the intention to reside in Southern Leyte, but he also had
personal presence therein, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. The latter
element, or his bodily presence as an inhabitant in Southern Leyte, was sufficient for
petitioner Saludo to be considered a resident therein for purposes of venue.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.
