HYATT ELEVATORS AND ESCALATORS CORPORATION vs. GOLDSTAR ELEVATORS, PHILS., INC.

G.R. No. 161026; October 24, 2005

Ponente:  Panganiban, J.,

 

FACTS:

Petitioner and Respondent are both engaged in the business of importing, installing and maintaining elevators and escalators. Hyatt filed an unfair competition case against LG and Goldstar alleging that it was appointed as the sole distributor of LG elevators and escalators.

Goldstar moved to dismiss the case alleging that venue was improperly laid as neither the Hyatt, LG or Goldstar itself resided in Mandaluyong city where the case was originally filed. The RTC denied the motion. The CA dismissed the case and held that Makati was the principal place of business of both respondent and petitioner, as stated in the latter’s Articles of Incorporation, that place was controlling for purposes of determining the proper venue.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the “residence” of the corporation is the same one as stated in the AOI.

HELD:

Yes. Although the Rules of Court do not provide that when the plaintiff is a corporation, the complaint should be filed in the location of its principal office as indicated in its articles of incorporation, jurisprudence has, however, settled that the place where the principal office of a corporation is located, as stated in the articles, indeed establishes its residence. This ruling is important in determining the venue of an action by or against a corporation, as in the present case.