13.docx

2
G.R. No. 104175 June 25, 1993 YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY CO. AND NEMESO GARCA, petitioners, vs. T!E !ONORA"LE COURT O# APPEALS $T!RTEENT! D%SON& AND GEORGE C!ONG RO'AS, respondents. FACTS: YASCO sold all their shares of stock in CMDC to George o!as. The latter "as a#le to $ake a %&' do"npa($ent of the p)rchase price in cash "hile the other half "ere $ade in post*dated checks. S)#se+)entl(, the post*dated checks "ere dishono)red "hich pro$pted YASCO to le an action for collection of s)$ of $one( in TC of Ce#). o!as failed to ans"er hence he "as declared in defa)lt. -itho)t "aiting for the resol)tion of the $otion for lifting the order of defa)lt, he led a petition for certiorari in CA on the gro)nd of i$proper ven)e. SS/0: -O1 the ven)e "as i$properl( laid. 203D: A corporation has no residence in the sa$e sense in "hich this ter$ applied to a nat)ral person. 4)t for practical p)rposes, a corporation is $etaph(sical sense a resident of the place "here its principal o5ce is located as stated in the articles of incorporation. The Corporation Code precisel( re+)ires each corporation to specif( in its articles of incorporation the 6place "here the principa o5ce of the corporation is to #e located "hich $)st #e "ithin the 7hilippines.6 The p)rpose of this re+)ire$ent is to ! the residence of a corporation in a de nite place, instead of allo"ing it to #e a$#)lator(. Actions cannot #e led against a corporation in an( place "here the corporation $aintains its #ranch o5ces. The Co)rt r)led that to allo" an action to #e instit)ted in an( place "here the corporation has #ranch o5ces, "o)ld create conf)sion and "ork )ntold inconvenience to said entit(. 4( the sa$e token, corporation cannot #e allo"ed to le personal actions in a place other than its principal place of #)siness )nless s)ch a place is also the residence of a co*plainti or a defendant. -ith the nding that the residence of YASCO for p)rposes of ven)e is in Ce#) Cit(, "here its principal place of #)siness is located, it #eco$es )nnecessar( to decide "hether Garcia is also a resident of Ce#) Cit( and "hether o!as "as in

description

sadsa

Transcript of 13.docx

G.R. No. 104175 June 25, 1993YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY CO. AND NEMESIO GARCIA, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRTEENTH DIVISION) AND GEORGE CHIONG ROXAS, respondents.FACTS:YASCO sold all their shares of stock in CMDC to George Roxas. The latter was able to make a 50% downpayment of the purchase price in cash while the other half were made in post-dated checks. Subsequently, the post-dated checks were dishonoured which prompted YASCO to file an action for collection of sum of money in RTC of Cebu. Roxas failed to answer hence he was declared in default. Without waiting for the resolution of the motion for lifting the order of default, he filed a petition for certiorari in CA on the ground of improper venue.ISSUE:WON the venue was improperly laid.HELD:A corporation has no residence in the same sense in which this term is applied to a natural person. But for practical purposes, a corporation is in a metaphysical sense a resident of the place where its principal office is located as stated in the articles of incorporation. The Corporation Code precisely requires each corporation to specify in its articles of incorporation the "place where the principal office of the corporation is to be located which must be within the Philippines." The purpose of this requirement is to fix the residence of a corporation in a definite place, instead of allowing it to be ambulatory. Actions cannot be filed against a corporation in any place where the corporation maintains its branch offices. The Court ruled that to allow an action to be instituted in any place where the corporation has branch offices, would create confusion and work untold inconvenience to said entity. By the same token, a corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions in a place other than its principal place of business unless such a place is also the residence of a co-plaintiff or a defendant. With the finding that the residence of YASCO for purposes of venue is in Cebu City, where its principal place of business is located, it becomes unnecessary to decide whether Garcia is also a resident of Cebu City and whether Roxas was in estoppel from questioning the choice of Cebu City as the venue. The decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside.