CLAVECILLA Radio System v. Hon. Agustin Antillon Facts: 1.

New Cagayan Grocery (NECAGRO) filed a complaint for damages against Clavecilla Radio system. They alleged that Clavecilla omitted the word NOT in the letter addressed to NECAGRO for transmittal at Clavecilla Cagayan de Oro Branch. NECAGRO alleged that the omission of the word not between the word WASHED and AVAILABLE altered the contents of the same causing them to suffer from damages. Clavecilla filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action and improper venue. City Judge of CDO denied the MTD. Clavecilla filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary Injunction with the CFI praying that the City Judge be enjoined from further proceeding with the case because of improper venue. CFI dismissed the case and held that Clavecilla may be sued either in Manila (principal office) or in CDO (branch office). Clavecilla appealed to the SC contending that the suit against it should be filed in Manila where it holds its principal office.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Issue: WON the present case against Clavecilla should be filed in Manila where it holds its principal office. Held: YES It is clear that the case from damages is based upon a written contract. Under par. (b)(3) Sec. 1 Rule 4 of the New Rules of Court, when an action is not upon a written contract then the case should be filed in the municipality where the defendant or any of the defendant resides or maybe served upon with summons. In corpo. Law, the residence of the corporation is the place whe re the principal office is established. Since Clavecillas principal office is in Manila, then the suit against it may properly be file in the City of Manila. As stated in Evangelista v. Santos, the laying of the venue of an action is not left to plaintiff s caprice because the matter is regulated by the Rules of Court.