40:00 - 50:00

You may take note that under the Corporation Law, a corporation has a
personality distinct and separate from the stockholders or incorporators
thereof. And that under Corporation Law, a corporation has the capacity to
sue or be sued. So for purposes of filing an action or defending a suit, the
question is, what then would be the residence of the corporation? Well, the
residence of a corporation for purposes of filing an action is the place
where its main office actually is located, and that place is normally, as the
same is required to be indicated in its articles of incorporation. Instructive of
this is the case of Clavecilla Radio System v Antillon (19 SCRA 39), that our
Supreme Court set the rule that any person, whether natural or juridical, can
only have one residence. Therefore, a corporation cannot be allowed to file
personal actions in a place other than its principal place of business, unless
such place is also the residence of a co-plaintiff or defendant. Verily, in this
case of Clavecilla Radio System v Antillon, it is crystal clear that the
residence of the corporation for purposes of venue of an action is the place
where it has its main or head office. Is that clear?

Okay. Let us go back to Section 2 of Rule 4, dealing with venue of personal

actions. Again, it provides, and i quote, that all other actions may be
commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides or where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or in the
case of a non resident defendant where such defendant may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff. As you can see, Section 2 mentions about non
resident defendant and when we speak of a non resident defendant, it refers
to a person who is not actually residing in the Philippines but may be found
in the Philippines. That’s why Section 2 has this provision to the end that it
contemplates a situation where the defendant is a non resident defendant
who can be found in the Philippines.

So i’ll give you a situation. Let us assume that you have a Filipino friend who
is actually a permanent resident of Wuhan, China but then he came to the
Philippines for a short visit but in view of the lockout, he wasn’t able to leave
for Wuhan. So he was constrained to stay in the meantime in the PH. He ran
out of cash and borrowed money from you. In the contract of loan, the period
for payment was stipulated but your friend from Wuhan failed to pay the
indebtedness upon due date. Assume that you want to file a case. First
question is, can you file a case against a person when he’s not a resident of
the PH. Section 2 rule 4 provides that you can definitely file a case because
for purposes of determining the action of the venue thereof, he is therefore
the person referred to here as a “non-resident defendant” who can be found
in the PH. So for the meantime he is staying in Dumaguete City, then you
can file the action for collection of sum of money in the appropriate court of
the place where you reside, or in Dumaguete where your friend is staying, or
where he may be found. Of course at your election. So as the plaintiff, you
have the choice where to file the action. That is the import of that provision
pertaining to a non-resident defendant who can be found in the Philippines
as stated in Section 2 of Rule 4.

What if before you could file the action, your friend already departed for
Wuhan? Can you still file a case? Take note that Section 2 Rule 4 mentions a
defendant who may be found in the Philippines. But in the modified situation,
your friend had already left for Wuhan China even before you could file a
case for a collection of some of money. Can you still file the case? Generally,
you can no longer file the case because our court cannot anymore acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. You take note that an action
for the collection of sum of money is a personal action and it requires
personal service of summons on the person of defendant. Our court cannot
anymore acquire jurisdiction over the person of defendant. But there is an
exception. That is when you convert a purely personal action to an action
that is quasi in rem. You can do that by attaching his property in the PH if
there is any. Even if your friend has already departed for Wuhan before you
could file a case for collection of sum of money, but he has a property in the
PH, your remedy is to file a complaint with prayer for attachment. Thereby
attaching his property that is situated in the PH.

You may recall in our discussion pertaining to the elements of jurisdiction, we

mentioned jurisdiction over the subject matter, over the person, over the res,
and over the issue. Recall further that we emphasize in the past that there
are situations where jurisdiction over the res may take their place of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Such that in the given problem,
if you apply for attachment, and the attachment is granted by the court, and
what is attached is the property of the defendant that is situated in the PH,
then the court already acquires jurisdiction over the res. Even if the court
has not actually acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the
court may now proceed to hear the case. After all, it has jurisdiction over the
res and the res is situated in the PH. So that is your remedy if you’re filing a
case against a non-resident defendant who cannot anymore be found in the
PH. So you convert a purely personal action to an action quasi in rem as by
attaching his property situated in the PH. Is there a legal basis for this? The
answer is a resounding YES. The answer is provided for under section 3 of
the same rule 4 of the rules of court governing venue of actions against non-
residents.