Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

159507 April 19, 2006

hand, defendant 2herein respondent %M <, Inc.3 ?is a corporation doin) business in the Philippines and en)a)ed in providin) credit and other credit facilities and allied services #ith office address at :th floor, %! "uildin), Rada Street, 4e)aspi Villa)e, Ma(ati !it$.? The other defendants 2herein respondents Fish and Mascrinas3 are officers of respondent %M <, and 5a$ be served #ith su55ons and other court processes at their office address. The co5plaint9s cause of action ste55ed fro5 the alle)ed #ron)ful dishonor of petitioner Saludo9s %M < credit card and the supple5entar$ card issued to his dau)hter. The first dishonor happened #hen petitioner Saludo9s dau)hter used her supple5entar$ credit card to pa$ her purchases in the Anited States so5e ti5e in %pril +,,,. The second dishonor occurred #hen petitioner Saludo used his principal credit card to pa$ his account at the >otel O(a#a in To($o, 'apan #hile he #as there #ith other dele)ates fro5 the Philippines to attend the !on)ressional Reco)nition in honor of Mr. >iroshi Tana(a. The dishonor of these %M < credit cards #ere alle)edl$ un7ustified as the$ resulted fro5 respondents9 unilateral act of suspendin) petitioner Saludo9s account for his failure to pa$ its balance coverin) the period of March +,,,. Petitioner Saludo denied havin) received the correspondin) state5ent of account. Further, he #as alle)edl$ #ron)full$ char)ed for late pa$5ent in 'une +,,,. SubseBuentl$, his credit card and its supple5entar$ cards #ere canceled b$ respondents on 'ul$ +,, +,,,. Petitioner Saludo clai5ed that he suffered )reat inconvenience, #ounded feelin)s, 5ental an)uish, e5barrass5ent, hu5iliation and bes5irched political and professional standin) as a result of respondents9 acts #hich #ere co55itted in )ross and evident bad faith, and in #anton, rec(less and oppressive 5anner. >e thus pra$ed that respondents be ad7ud)ed to pa$ hi5, 7ointl$ and severall$, actual, 5oral and e8e5plar$ da5a)es, and attorne$9s fees. In their ans#er, respondents specificall$ denied the alle)ations in the co5plaint. Further, the$ raised the affir5ative defenses of lac( of cause of action and i5proper venue. On the latter, respondents averred that the co5plaint should be dis5issed on the )round that venue #as i5properl$ laid because none of the parties #as a resident of 4e$te. The$ alle)ed that respondents #ere not residents of Southern 4e$te. Moreover, not#ithstandin) the clai5 in his co5plaint, petitioner Saludo #as not alle)edl$ a resident thereof as evidenced b$ the fact that his co55unit$ ta8 certificate, #hich #as presented #hen he e8ecuted the co5plaint9s verification and

ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., Petitioner, vs. AMERICAN E PRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., !"#$or IAN T. %IS& !"# DOMINIC MASCRINAS, Respondents. D CALLEJO, SR., J.: "efore the !ourt is the Petition for Revie# on !ertiorari filed b$ %niceto &. Saludo, 'r. see(in) to reverse and set aside the Decision * dated Ma$ ++, +,,of the !ourt of %ppeals in !%.&.R. SP No. /011-. The assailed decision directed the Re)ional Trial !ourt 2RT!3 of Maasin !it$, Southern 4e$te, "ranch +1 thereof, to vacate and set aside its Orders dated Septe5ber *,, +,,* and 'anuar$ +, +,,+ in !ivil !ase No. R.-*6+, and en7oined the presidin) 7ud)e+ thereof fro5 conductin) further proceedin)s in said case, e8cept to dis5iss the co5plaint filed there#ith on )round of i5proper venue. The petition also see(s to reverse and set aside the appellate court9s Resolution dated %u)ust *:, +,,- den$in) the 5otion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. The factual and procedural antecedents are as follo#s; %niceto &. Saludo, 'r. filed a co5plaint for da5a)es a)ainst the %5erican 8press International, Inc. 2%M <3 and=or its officers Ian T. Fish, Vice.President and !ountr$ Mana)er, and Do5inic Mascrinas, >ead of Operations, #ith the RT! of Maasin !it$, Southern 4e$te. The case #as raffled to "ranch +1 of the said court. The co5plaint alle)ed, inter alia, that plaintiff 2herein petitioner Saludo3 ?is a Filipino citi@en, of le)al a)e, and a 5e5ber of the >ouse of Representatives and a resident of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern 4e$te, Philippines.? On the other !ISION

certification of non.foru5 shoppin), #as issued at Pasa$ !it$. To buttress their contention, respondents pointed out that petitioner Saludo9s co5plaint #as prepared in Pasa$ !it$ and si)ned b$ a la#$er of the said cit$. Respondents pra$ed for the dis5issal of the co5plaint a Buo. Thereafter, respondents filed an Opposition to 8.Parte Motion 2to Set !ase for Pre.Trial3 and Motion for Preli5inar$ >earin) 2on %ffir5ative Defense of I5proper Venue3 to #hich petitioner Saludo filed his !o55ents and=or Ob7ections to the %ffir5ative Defense of I5proper Venue. >e asserted that an$ alle)ation refutin) his residenc$ in Southern 4e$te #as baseless and unfounded considerin) that he #as the con)ress5an of the lone district thereof at the ti5e of the filin) of his co5plaint. >e ur)ed the court a Buo to ta(e 7udicial notice of this particular fact. %s a 5e5ber of !on)ress, he possessed all the Bualifications prescribed b$ the !onstitution includin) that of bein) a resident of his district. >e #as also a 5e5ber of the Inte)rated "ar of the Philippines.Southern 4e$te !hapter, and has been such ever since his ad5ission to the "ar. >is co55unit$ ta8 certificate #as issued at Pasa$ !it$ onl$ because he has an office thereat and the office 5essen)er obtained the sa5e in the said cit$. In an$ event, the co55unit$ ta8 certificate is not deter5inative of one9s residence. In the Order dated Septe5ber *,, +,,*, the court a Buo denied the affir5ative defenses interposed b$ respondents. It found the alle)ations of the co5plaint sufficient to constitute a cause of action a)ainst respondents. The court a Buo li(e#ise denied respondents9 affir5ative defense that venue #as i5properl$ laid. It reasoned, thus; 8 8 8 CTDhe fact alone that the plaintiff at the ti5e he filed the co5plaint #as and still is, the incu5bent !on)ress5an of the 4one District of Southern 4e$te #ith residence at Ichon, Macrohon, Southern 4e$te, is enou)h to dispell an$ and all doubts about his actual residence. %s a hi)h.ran(in) )overn5ent official of the province, his residence there can be ta(en 7udicial notice of. %s such his personal, actual and ph$sical habitation or his actual residence or place of abode can never be in so5e other place but in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern 4e$te. It is correctl$ stated b$ the plaintiff, citin) the case of !ore v. !ore, *,, Phil. -+* that, ?residence, for purposes of fi8in) venue of an action, is s$non$5ous #ith do5icile. This is defined as the per5anent ho5e, the place to #hich, #henever absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on the facts and circu5stances, in the sense that the$ disclose intent. % person can have but one do5icile at a ti5e. % 5an can have but one do5icile for one and the sa5e purpose at an$ ti5e, but he 5a$

have nu5erous places of residence. Venue could be at place of his residence. 2Masa v. Mison, +,, S!R% 6*1 C*00*D3Respondents sou)ht the reconsideration thereof but the court a Buo denied the sa5e in the Order dated 'anuar$ +, +,,+. The$ then filed #ith the appellate court a petition for certiorari and prohibition alle)in) )rave abuse of discretion on the part of the presidin) 7ud)e of the court a Buo in issuin) the Septe5ber *,, +,,* and 'anuar$ +, +,,+ Orders. Apon respondents9 postin) of a bond, the appellate court issued on March *:, +,,+ a te5porar$ restrainin) order #hich en7oined the presidin) 7ud)e of the court a Buo fro5 conductin) further proceedin)s in !ivil !ase No. R.-*6+. On Ma$ ++, +,,-, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision )rantin) respondents9 petition for certiorari as it found that venue #as i5properl$ laid. It directed the court a Buo to vacate and set aside its Orders dated Septe5ber *,, +,,* and 'anuar$ +, +,,+, and en7oined the presidin) 7ud)e thereof fro5 further proceedin) in the case, e8cept to dis5iss the co5plaint. The appellate court e8plained that the action filed b$ petitioner Saludo a)ainst respondents is )overned b$ Section +, Rule : of the Rules of !ourt. The said rule on venue of personal actions basicall$ provides that personal actions 5a$ be co55enced and tried #here plaintiff or an$ of the principal plaintiffs resides, or #here defendant or an$ of the principal defendants resides, at the election of plaintiff. Venue #as i5properl$ laid in the court a Buo, accordin) to the appellate court, because not one of the parties #as a resident of Southern 4e$te. Specificall$, it declared that petitioner Saludo #as not a resident thereof. The appellate court pronounced that, for purposes of venue, the residence of a person is his personal, actual or ph$sical habitation, or his actual residence or place of abode, #hich 5a$ not necessaril$ be his le)al residence or do5icile provided he resides therein #ith continuit$ and consistenc$. : The appellate court Buoted the follo#in) discussion in Eoh v. !ourt of %ppeals1 #here the !ourt distin)uished the ter5s ?residence? and ?do5icile? in this #ise; 8 8 8 CTDhe ter5 do5icile is not e8actl$ s$non$5ous in le)al conte5plation #ith the ter5 residence, for it is CanD established principle in !onflict of 4a#s that do5icile refers to the relativel$ 5ore per5anent abode of a person #hile residence applies to a te5porar$ sta$ of a person in a )iven place. In fact,

this distinction is ver$ #ell e5phasi@ed in those cases #here the Do5iciliar$ Theor$ 5ust necessaril$ supplant the Nationalit$ Theor$ in cases involvin) stateless persons. 8888 ?There is a difference bet#een do5icile and residence. Residence is used to indicate a place of abode, #hether per5anent or te5porar$F do5icile denotes a fi8ed per5anent residence to #hich #hen absent, one has the intention of returnin). % 5an 5a$ have a residence in one place and a do5icile in another. Residence is not do5icile, but do5icile is residence coupled #ith intention to re5ain for an unli5ited ti5e. % 5an can have but one do5icile for one and the sa5e purpose at an$ ti5e, but he 5a$ have nu5erous places of residence. >is place of residence )enerall$ is his place of do5icile, but is not b$ an$ 5eans, necessaril$ so since no len)th of residence #ithout intention of re5ainin) #ill constitute do5icile.? / 2Italici@ed for e5phasis3 In holdin) that petitioner Saludo is not a resident of Maasin !it$, Southern 4e$te, the appellate court referred to his co55unit$ ta8 certificate, as indicated in his co5plaint9s verification and certification of non.foru5 shoppin), #hich #as issued at Pasa$ !it$. Si5ilarl$, it referred to the sa5e co55unit$ ta8 certificate, as indicated in his co5plaint for deportation filed a)ainst respondents Fish and Mascrinas. Ander Republic %ct No. 6*/,, 6 the co55unit$ ta8 certificate shall be paid in the place of residence of the individual, or in the place #here the principal office of the 7uridical entit$ is located.G It also pointed out that petitioner Saludo9s la# office, #hich #as also representin) hi5 in the present case, is in Pasa$ !it$. The fore)oin) circu5stances #ere considered b$ the appellate court as 7udicial ad5issions of petitioner Saludo #hich are conclusive upon hi5 and no lon)er reBuired proof. The appellate court chided the court a Buo for statin) that as incu5bent con)ress5an of the lone district of Southern 4e$te, 7udicial notice could be ta(en of the fact of petitioner Saludo9s residence thereat. No evidence had $et been adduced that petitioner Saludo #as then the con)ress5an of Southern 4e$te and actual resident of Ichon, Macrohon of the said province. The appellate court held that, based on his co5plaint, petitioner Saludo #as actuall$ residin) in Pasa$ !it$. It faulted hi5 for filin) his co5plaint #ith the court a Buo #hen the said venue is inconvenient to the parties to the case. It

opined that under the rules, the possible choices of venue are Pasa$ !it$ or Ma(ati !it$, or an$ place in the National !apital 'udicial Re)ion, at the option of petitioner Saludo. It stressed that #hile the choice of venue is )iven to plaintiff, said choice is not left to his caprice and cannot deprive a defendant of the ri)hts conferred upon hi5 b$ the Rules of !ourt. 0 Further, funda5ental in the la# )overnin) venue of actions that the situs for brin)in) real and personal civil actions is fi8ed b$ the rules to attain the )reatest possible convenience to the part$ liti)ants b$ ta(in) into consideration the 5a8i5u5 accessibilit$ to the5 . i.e., to both plaintiff and defendant, not onl$ to one or the other . of the courts of 7ustice.*, The appellate court concluded that the court a Buo should have )iven due course to respondents9 affir5ative defense of i5proper venue in order to avoid an$ suspicion that petitioner Saludo9s 5otive in filin) his co5plaint #ith the court a Buo #as onl$ to ve8 and undul$ inconvenience respondents or even to #ield influence in the outco5e of the case, petitioner Saludo bein) a po#erful and influential fi)ure in the said province. The latter circu5stance could be re)arded as a ?specie of foru5 shoppin)? a(in to that in Investors Finance !orp. v. barle** #here the !ourt 5entioned that the filin) of the civil action before the court in Pa)adian !it$ ?#as a specie of foru5 shoppin)? considerin) that plaintiff therein #as an influential person in the localit$. The decretal portion of the assailed Decision dated Ma$ ++, +,,- of the appellate court reads; APON T> VI H H T%E OF T>IS !%S , T>AS, the challen)ed orders 5ust be, as the$ hereb$ are, V%!%T D and S T %SID and the respondent 7ud)e, or an$ one actin) in his place or stead, is instructed and en7oined to desist fro5 further proceedin) in the case, e8cept to dis5iss it. The te5porar$ restrainin) order earlier issued is hereb$ converted into a #rit of preli5inar$ in7unction, upon the postin) this ti5e b$ petitioners Cherein respondentsD, #ithin five 213 da$s fro5 receipt of this decision, of a bond in the a5ount of Five Million Pesos 2P1,,,,,,,,.,,3, to ans#er for all da5a)es that private respondent Cherein petitionerD 5a$ sustain b$ reason of the issuance of such in7unction should the !ourt finall$ decide that petitioners are not entitled thereto. Private respondent, if he so 5inded, 5a$ refile his case for da5a)es before the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Ma(ati !it$ or Pasa$ !it$, or an$ of the Re)ional Trial !ourts of the National !apital 'udicial Re)ion. Hithout costs.

SO ORD R D.*+ Petitioner Saludo sou)ht the reconsideration of the said decision but the appellate court, in the Resolution dated %u)ust *:, +,,-, denied his 5otion for reconsideration. >ence, he filed the instant petition for revie# #ith the !ourt alle)in) that; The !ourt of %ppeals, 2Special Fourth Division3, in pro5ul)atin) the afore. 5entioned Decision and Resolution, has decided a Buestion of substance in a #a$ probabl$ not in accord #ith la# or #ith applicable decisions of this >onorable !ourt. 2a3 the !ourt of %ppeals erred in not ta(in) 7udicial notice of the undisputed fact that herein petitioner is the incu5bent con)ress5an of the lone district of Southern 4e$te and as such, he is a residence 2sic3 of said districtF 2b3 the !ourt of %ppeals erred in dis5issin) the co5plaint on the basis of i5proper venue due to the alle)ed 7udicial ad5ission of herein petitionerF 2c3 the !ourt of %ppeals in dis5issin) the co5plaint i)nored applicable decisions of this >onorable !ourtF and1avvphil.net 2d3 the !ourt of %ppeals erred in decidin) that herein petitioner violated the rules on venue, and even speculated that herein petitioner9s 5otive in filin) the co5plaint in Maasin !it$ #as onl$ to ve8 the respondents.*In )ist, the sole substantive issue for the !ourt9s resolution is #hether the appellate court co55itted reversible error in holdin) that venue #as i5properl$ laid in the court a Buo in !ivil !ase No. R.-*6+ because not one of the parties, includin) petitioner Saludo, as plaintiff therein, #as a resident of Southern 4e$te at the ti5e of filin) of the co5plaint. The petition is 5eritorious. Petitioner Saludo9s co5plaint for da5a)es a)ainst respondents before the court a Buo is a personal action. %s such, it is )overned b$ Section +, Rule : of the Rules of !ourts #hich reads;

S !. +. Venue of personal actions. . %ll other actions 5a$ be co55enced and tried #here the plaintiff or an$ of the principal plaintiffs resides, or #here the defendant or an$ of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non. resident defendant #here he 5a$ be found, at the election of the plaintiff. The choice of venue for personal actions co)ni@able b$ the RT! is )iven to plaintiff but not to plaintiff9s caprice because the 5atter is re)ulated b$ the Rules of !ourt.*: The rule on venue, li(e other procedural rules, is desi)ned to insure a 7ust and orderl$ ad5inistration of 7ustice, or the i5partial and evenhanded deter5ination of ever$ action and proceedin). *1 The option of plaintiff in personal actions co)ni@able b$ the RT! is either the place #here defendant resides or 5a$ be found, or the place #here plaintiff resides. If plaintiff opts for the latter, he is li5ited to that place. */ Follo#in) this rule, petitioner Saludo, as plaintiff, had opted to file his co5plaint #ith the court a Buo #hich is in Maasin !it$, Southern 4e$te. >e alle)ed in his co5plaint that he #as a 5e5ber of the >ouse of Representatives and a resident of Ichon, Macrohon, Southern 4e$te to co5pl$ #ith the residenc$ reBuire5ent of the rule. >o#ever, the appellate court, adoptin) respondents9 theor$, 5ade the findin) that petitioner Saludo #as not a resident of Southern 4e$te at the ti5e of the filin) of his co5plaint. It hin)ed the said findin) 5ainl$ on the fact that petitioner Saludo9s co55unit$ ta8 certificate, indicated in his co5plaint9s verification and certification of non.foru5 shoppin), #as issued at Pasa$ !it$. That his la# office is in Pasa$ !it$ #as also ta(en b$ the appellate court as ne)atin) petitioner Saludo9s clai5 of residence in Southern 4e$te. The appellate court co55itted reversible error in findin) that petitioner Saludo #as not a resident of Southern 4e$te at the ti5e of the filin) of his co5plaint, and conseBuentl$ holdin) that venue #as i5properl$ laid in the court a Buo. In Dan)#a Transportation !o., Inc. v. Sar5iento, *6 the !ourt had the occasion to e8plain at len)th the 5eanin) of the ter5 ?resides? for purposes of venue, thus; In Eoh v. !ourt of %ppeals, #e e8plained that the ter5 ?resides? as e5plo$ed in the rule on venue on personal actions filed #ith the courts of first instance 5eans the place of abode, #hether per5anent or te5porar$, of the plaintiff or the defendant, as distin)uished fro5 ?do5icile? #hich denotes a fi8ed per5anent residence to #hich, #hen absent, one has the intention of returnin).

?It is funda5ental in the la# )overnin) venue of actions 2Rule : of the Rules of !ourt3 that the situs for brin)in) real and personal civil actions are fi8ed b$ the rules to attain the )reatest convenience possible to the parties.liti)ants b$ ta(in) into consideration the 5a8i5u5 accessibilit$ to the5 of the courts of 7ustice. It is, li(e#ise, undeniable that the ter5 do5icile is not e8actl$ s$non$5ous in le)al conte5plation #ith the ter5 residence, for it is an established principle in !onflict of 4a#s that do5icile refers to the relativel$ 5ore per5anent abode of a person #hile residence applies to a te5porar$ sta$ of a person in a )iven place. In fact, this distinction is ver$ #ell e5phasi@ed in those cases #here the Do5iciliar$ Theor$ 5ust necessaril$ supplant the Nationalit$ Theor$ in cases involvin) stateless persons. ?This !ourt held in the case of A$ten)su v. Republic, 1, O.&. :6G*, October, *01:, reversin) its previous stand in 4arena v. Ferrer, /* Phil. -/, and Nuval v. &ura$, 1+ Phil. /:1, that . 9There is a difference bet#een do5icile and residence. Residence is used to indicate a place of abode, #hether per5anent or te5porar$F do5icile denotes a fi8ed per5anent residence to #hich #hen absent, one has the intention of returnin). % 5an 5a$ have a residence in one place and a do5icile in another. Residence is not do5icile, but do5icile is residence coupled #ith the intention to re5ain for an unli5ited ti5e. % 5an can have but one do5icile for one and the sa5e purpose at an$ ti5e, but he 5a$ have nu5erous places of residence. >is place of residence )enerall$ is his place of do5icile, but is not b$ an$ 5eans, necessaril$ so since no len)th of residence #ithout intention of re5ainin) #ill constitute do5icile.9 2Italici@ed for e5phasis3 ?He note that the la# on venue in !ourts of First Instance 2Section +, of Rule :, Rules of !ourt3 in referrin) to the parties utili@es the #ords 9resides or 5a$ be found,9 and not 9is do5iciled,9 thus; 9Sec. +2b3 Personal actions . %ll other actions 5a$ be co55enced and tried #here the defendant or an$ of the defendants resides or 5a$ be found, or #here the plaintiff or an$ of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.9 2Italici@ed for e5phasis3 ?%ppl$in) the fore)oin) observation to the present case, He are full$ convinced that private respondent !olo5a9s protestations of do5icile in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, based on his 5anifested intention to return there after the retire5ent of his #ife fro5 )overn5ent service to 7ustif$ his brin)in) of

an action for da5a)es a)ainst petitioner in the !.F.I. of Ilocos Norte, is entirel$ of no 5o5ent since #hat is of para5ount i5portance is #here he actuall$ resided or #here he 5a$ be found at the ti5e he brou)ht the action, to co5pl$ substantiall$ #ith the reBuire5ents of Sec. +2b3 of Rule :, Rules of !ourt, on venue of personal actions.? 2Eoh v. !ourt of %ppeals, supra, pp. -,:.-,1.3 The sa5e construction of the #ord ?resides? as used in Section *, Rule 6-, of the Revised Rules of !ourt, #as enunciated in Fule v. !ourt of %ppeals, et al. 2&.R. No. 4.:,1,+3 and Fule v. >on. rnani !. PaIo, et al. 2&.R. No. 4.:+/6,3, decided on Nove5ber +0, *06/. Thus, this !ourt, in the aforecited cases, stated; ?+. "ut, the far.ran)in) Buestion is this; Hhat does the ter5 9resides9 5eanJ Does it refer to the actual residence or do5icile of the decedent at the ti5e of his deathJ He la$ do#n the doctrinal rule that the ter5 9resides9 connotes e8 vi ter5ini 9actual residence9 as distin)uished fro5 9le)al residence or do5icile.9 This ter5 9resides,9 li(e the ter5s 9residin)9 and 9residence9 is elastic and should be interpreted in the li)ht of the ob7ect or purposes of the statute or rule in #hich it is e5plo$ed. In the application of venue statutes and rules . Section *, Rule 6- of the Revised Rules of !ourt is of such nature . residence rather than do5icile is the si)nificant factor. ven #here the statute uses the #ord 9do5icile9 still it is construed as 5eanin) residence and not do5icile in the technical sense. So5e cases 5a(e a distinction bet#een the ter5s 9residence9 and 9do5icile9 but as )enerall$ used in statutes fi8in) venue, the ter5s are s$non$5ous, and conve$ the sa5e 5eanin) as the ter5 9inhabitant.9 In other #ords, 9resides9 should be vie#ed or understood in its popular sense, 5eanin), the personal, actual or ph$sical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It si)nifies ph$sical presence in a place and actual sta$ thereat. In this popular sense, the ter5 5eans 5erel$ residence, that is, personal residence, not le)al residence or do5icile. Residence si5pl$ reBuires bodil$ presence as an inhabitant in a )iven place, #hile do5icile reBuires bodil$ presence in that place and also an intention to 5a(e it one9s do5icile. No particular len)th of ti5e of residence is reBuired thou)hF ho#ever, the residence 5ust be 5ore than te5porar$.?*G There is no dispute that petitioner Saludo #as the con)ress5an or the representative of the lone district of Southern 4e$te at the ti5e of filin) of his co5plaint #ith the court a Buo. ven the appellate court ad5its this fact as it states that ?it 5a$ be conceded that private respondent ever so often travels

to Maasin !it$, Southern 4e$te, because he is its representative in the lo#er house.?*0 %s a 5e5ber of the >ouse of Representatives, petitioner Saludo #as correctl$ dee5ed b$ the court a Buo as possessin) the reBuire5ents for the said position,+, includin) that he #as then a resident of the district #hich he #as representin), i.e., Southern 4e$te. Si)nificantl$, for purposes of election la#, the ter5 ?residence? is s$non$5ous #ith ?do5icile,? thus; 8 8 8 CTDhe !ourt held that ?do5icile? and ?residence? are s$non$5ous. The ter5 ?residence,? as used in the election la#, i5ports not onl$ an intention to reside in a fi8ed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled #ith conduct indicative of such intention. ?Do5icile? denotes a fi8ed per5anent residence to #hich #hen absent for business or pleasure, or for li(e reasons, one intends to return. 8 8 8+* It can be readil$ )leaned that the definition of ?residence? for purposes of election la# is 5ore strin)ent in that it is eBuated #ith the ter5 ?do5icile.? >ence, for the said purpose, the ter5 ?residence? i5ports ?not onl$ an intention to reside in a fi8ed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled #ith conduct indicative of such intention.? ++ Hhen parsed, therefore, the ter5 ?residence? reBuires t#o ele5ents; 2*3 intention to reside in the particular placeF and 2+3 personal or ph$sical presence in that place, coupled #ith conduct indicative of such intention. %s the !ourt elucidated, ?the place #here a part$ actuall$ or constructivel$ has a per5anent ho5e, #here he, no 5atter #here he 5a$ be found at an$ )iven ti5e, eventuall$ intends to return and re5ain, i.e., his do5icile, is that to #hich the !onstitution refers #hen it spea(s of residence for the purposes of election la#.?+On the other hand, for purposes of venue, the less technical definition of ?residence? is adopted. Thus, it is understood to 5ean as ?the personal, actual or ph$sical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It si)nifies ph$sical presence in a place and actual sta$ thereat. In this popular sense, the ter5 5eans 5erel$ residence, that is, personal residence, not le)al residence or do5icile. Residence si5pl$ reBuires bodil$ presence as an inhabitant in a )iven place, #hile do5icile reBuires bodil$ presence in that place and also an intention to 5a(e it one9s do5icile.?+: Since petitioner Saludo, as con)ress5an or the lone representative of the district of Southern 4e$te, had his residence 2or do5icile3 therein as the ter5 is construed in relation to election la#s, necessaril$, he is also dee5ed to

have had his residence therein for purposes of venue for filin) personal actions. Put in another 5anner, Southern 4e$te, as the do5icile of petitioner Saludo, #as also his residence, as the ter5 is understood in its popular sense. This is because ?residence is not do5icile, but do5icile is residence coupled #ith the intention to re5ain for an unli5ited ti5e.? Reliance b$ the appellate court on Eoh v. !ourt of %ppeals +1 is 5isplaced. !ontrar$ to its holdin),+/ the facts of the present case are not si5ilar to the facts therein. In Eoh, the co5plaint #as filed #ith the !ourt of First Instance in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte b$ plaintiff #ho ad5itted that he #as a resident of Ea5ias, Kue@on !it$. Save for the fact that he )re# up in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte and that he 5anifested the intent to return there after retire5ent, plaintiff therein had not established that he #as actuall$ a resident therein at the ti5e of the filin) of his co5plaint. Neither did he establish that he had his do5icile therein because althou)h he 5anifested the intent to )o bac( there after retire5ent, the ele5ent of personal presence in that place #as lac(in). To reiterate, do5icile or residence, as the ter5s are ta(en as s$non$5s, i5ports ?not onl$ an intention to reside in a fi8ed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled #ith conduct indicative of such intention.?+6 In contrast, petitioner Saludo #as the con)ress5an or representative of Southern 4e$te at the ti5e of filin) of his co5plaint #ith the court a Buo. %bsent an$ evidence to the contrar$, he is dee5ed to possess the Bualifications for the said position, includin) that he #as a resident therein. %nd follo#in) the definition of the ter5 ?residence? for purposes of election la#, petitioner Saludo not onl$ had the intention to reside in Southern 4e$te, but he also had personal presence therein, coupled #ith conduct indicative of such intention. The latter ele5ent, or his bodil$ presence as an inhabitant in Southern 4e$te, #as sufficient for petitioner Saludo to be considered a resident therein for purposes of venue. The follo#in) ratiocination of the court a Buo is apt; Residence in civil la# is a 5aterial fact, referrin) to the ph$sical presence of a person in a place. % person can have t#o or 5ore residences, such as a countr$ residence and a cit$ residence. 2Kuetulio v. Rui@, S.!. Off. &a@. *1/, !o55entaries and 'urisprudence in !ivil 4a#, Vol. *, pa)e +**, Tolentino3. Residence is acBuired b$ livin) in a placeF on the other hand, do5icile can e8ist #ithout actuall$ livin) in the place. The i5portant thin) for do5icile is that, once residence has been established in one place, there be an intention

to sta$ there per5anentl$, even if residence is also established in so5e other place. Thus, if a person lives #ith his fa5il$ habituall$ in Kue@on !it$, he #ould have his do5icile in Kue@on !it$. If he also has a house for vacation purposes in the !it$ of "a)uio, and another house in connection #ith his business in the !it$ of Manila, he #ould have residence in all three places 2Tolentino, !o55entaries and 'urisprudence on !ivil 4a#, Vol. *, Pa)e +*+, *00, dition3 so that oneC9Ds le)al residence or do5icile can also be his actual, personal or ph$sical residence or habitation or place of abode if he sta$s there #ith intention to sta$ there per5anentl$. In the instant case, since plaintiff has a house in Ma(ati !it$ for the purpose of e8ercisin) his profession or doin) business and also a house in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern 4e$te, for doin) business and=or for election or political purposes #here he also lives or sta$s ph$sicall$, personall$ and actuall$ then he can have residences in these t#o places. "ecause it #ould then be preposterous to ac(no#led)e and reco)ni@e plaintiff %niceto &. Saludo, 'r. as con)ress5an of Southern 4e$te #ithout also reco)ni@in) hi5 as actuall$, personall$ and ph$sicall$ residin) thereat, #hen such residence is reBuired b$ la#.+G The fact then that petitioner Saludo9s co55unit$ ta8 certificate #as issued at Pasa$ !it$ is of no 5o5ent because )rantin) ar)uendo that he could be considered a resident therein, the sa5e does not preclude his havin) a residence in Southern 4e$te for purposes of venue. % 5an can have but one do5icile for one and the sa5e purpose at an$ ti5e, but he 5a$ have nu5erous places of residence.+0 That petitioner Saludo #as the con)ress5an or representative of the lone district of Southern 4e$te at the ti5e of the filin) of his co5plaint #as ad5itted as a fact b$ the court a Buo. In this connection, it conseBuentl$ held that, as such, petitioner Saludo9s residence in Southern 4e$te, the district he #as the representin), could be ta(en 7udicial notice of. The court a Buo cannot be faulted for doin) so because courts are allo#ed ?to ta(e 7udicial notice of 5atters #hich are of public (no#led)e, or are capable of unBuestionable de5onstration, or ou)ht to be (no#n to 7ud)es because of their 7udicial functions.? -, !ourts are li(e#ise bound to ta(e 7udicial notice, #ithout the introduction of evidence, of the la# in force in the Philippines, -* includin) its !onstitution.

The concept of ?facts of co55on (no#led)e? in the conte8t of 7udicial notice has been e8plained as those facts that are ?so co55onl$ (no#n in the co55unit$ as to 5a(e it unprofitable to reBuire proof, and so certainl$ (no#n to as to 5a(e it indisputable a5on) reasonable 5en.? -+ Moreover, ?thou)h usuall$ facts of 9co55on (no#led)e9 #ill be )enerall$ (no#n throu)hout the countr$, it is sufficient as a basis for 7udicial notice that the$ be (no#n in the local co55unit$ #here the trial court sits.? -- !ertainl$, the fact of petitioner Saludo bein) the dul$ elected representative of Southern 4e$te at the ti5e could be properl$ ta(en 7udicial notice of b$ the court a Buo, the sa5e bein) a 5atter of co55on (no#led)e in the co55unit$ #here it sits. Further, petitioner Saludo9s residence in Southern 4e$te could li(e#ise be properl$ ta(en 7udicial notice of b$ the court a Buo. It is bound to (no# that, under the !onstitution, one of the Bualifications of a con)ress5an or representative to the >ouse of Representatives is havin) a residence in the district in #hich he shall be elected. In fine, petitioner Saludo9s act of filin) his co5plaint #ith the court a Buo cannot be characteri@ed as a ?specie of foru5.shoppin)? or capricious on his part because, under the rules, as plaintiff, he is precisel$ )iven this option. Finall$, respondents9 clai5 that the instant petition for revie# #as not properl$ verified b$ petitioner Saludo deserves scant consideration. Section :, Rule 6 of the Rules of !ourt reads; Sec. :. Verification. . 8cept #hen other#ise specificall$ reBuired b$ la# or rule, pleadin)s need not be under oath, verified or acco5panied b$ affidavit. % pleadin) is verified b$ an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleadin) and that the alle)ations therein are true and correct of his personal (no#led)e or based on authentic records. % pleadin) reBuired to be verified #hich contains a verification based on ?infor5ation and belief,? or upon ?(no#led)e, infor5ation and belief,? or lac(s proper verification, shall be treated as an unsi)ned pleadin). Petitioner Saludo9s verification and certification of non.foru5 shoppin) states that he has ?read the contents thereof Creferrin) to the petitionD and the sa5e are true and correct of 5$ o#n personal (no#led)e and belief and on

the basis of the records at hand.? The sa5e clearl$ constitutes substantial co5pliance #ith the above reBuire5ents of the Rules of !ourt. H> R FOR , pre5ises considered, the petition is &R%NT D. The Decision dated Ma$ ++, +,,- and Resolution dated %u)ust *:, +,,- of the !ourt of %ppeals in !%.&.R. SP No. /011- are R V RS D and S T %SID . The Orders dated Septe5ber *,, +,,* and 'anuar$ +, +,,+ of the Re)ional Trial !ourt of Maasin !it$, Southern 4e$te, "ranch +1 thereof, in !ivil !ase No. R.-*6+ are R INST%T D. SO ORD R D.