07. Universal Robina Corporation v.

Lim
G.R. No. 154338, 05 October 2007
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. / jbsj

Subject Matter: Civil Procedure; Motion to Dismiss; Motu Propio Dismissal by the Court

Case Summary: URC filed a complaint for sum of money in the RTC Quezon City when Lim refused to settle
his obligation under a contract of sale despite URC's repeated demands. The RTC motu propio issued an order
dismissing the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The trial court observed
that URC is located in Pasig City, Lim resides in Laoag City, and the trial court is in Quezon City. The trial court
subsequently granted URC's motion for reconsideration and admitted its amended complaint, issuing summons
to Lim. When Lim failed to file an answer and upon URC's motion, the trial declared him in default and allowed
URC to present its evidence ex parte. The trial court remained unsure whether venue was properly laid. It
ordered URC to file a memorandum of authorities on whether it can file a complaint in Quezon City.
Subsequently, the trial court again ordered the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper venue.
URC filed a petition for review to the CA after the trial court denied its motion for reconsideration. In turn, the
CA dismissed URC's petition for its failure to attach an explanation why copies of the petition were not served
by personal service but by registered mail. The Supreme Court held that since improper venue not impleaded
in the motion to dismiss or in the answer, this defense is deemed waived. Thus, a court may not dismiss an
action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the grounds wherein the court may
dismiss an action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings.

Doctrines:
1. Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides for the instances when the trial court may motu proprio dismiss
a claim, thus: “Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim.”

2. Improper venue not impleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived. Thus, a court
may not dismiss an action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the grounds wherein
the court may dismiss an action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings.

Action Before SC: Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 the resolutions of the CA.

Parties:
Petitioner Universal Robina Corporation (URC)

Respondent Albert Lim, doing business under the name and style "New H-R Grocery"

Facts:
1. URC and Lim entered into a contract of sale where the former would sell to the latter grocery products
amounting to P808,059.88.

2. After making partial payments, Lim refused to settle his obligation despite URC's repeated demands, forcing
URC to file a complaint for sum of money in the RTC Quezon City.
Action in the RTC

3. The RTC motu propio issued an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and
improper venue. The trial court observed that URC is located in Pasig City, Lim resides in Laoag City, and the
trial court is in Quezon City.

4. URC filed a motion for reconsideration together with an amended complaint alleging that the parties agreed
that the proper venue for any dispute relative to the transaction is Quezon City.

5. The trial court granted the motion and admitted URC’s amended complaint, subsequently issuing summons
to Lim. When Lim failed to file an answer and upon URC's motion, the trial declared him in default
and allowed URC to present its evidence ex parte.

6. The trial court remained unsure whether venue was properly laid. It ordered URC to file a memorandum of
authorities on whether it can file a complaint in Quezon City. Subsequently, the trial court again ordered the
dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper venue.

7. URC filed a petition for review to the CA after the trial court denied its motion for reconsideration.

Action in the CA

8. The CA dismissed the petition for URC's failure to attach an explanation why copies of the petition were not
served by personal service but by registered mail.

9. After the CA denied its motion for reconsideration, URC filed the petition with the Supreme Court.

Issue: Can the trial court dismiss motu proprio petitioner’s complaint on the ground of improper venue? [NO]

Holding/Ratio:
1. Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court provides for the instances when the trial court may motu proprio dismiss
a claim, thus: “Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed
waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the
claim.”

2. Improper venue not impleaded in the motion to dismiss or in the answer is deemed waived. Thus, a court
may not dismiss an action motu proprio on the ground of improper venue as it is not one of the grounds wherein
the court may dismiss an action motu proprio on the basis of the pleadings.

Petition dismissed.