8/13/2019 Ang vs. Ang.docx

1/2

ANG vs. ANG

August 22, 2012

FACTS:

Respondent spouses Alan and Em Ang obtained a loan (1992) from petitioner spousesTheodore and Nancy Ang, the former executed a promissory note in favor of the latterwherein they promised to pay, upon demand.

Despite repeated demands, Alan and Em failed to pay the petitioners. Petitioners sent ademand letter, but to no avail.

Petitioners, who were residing at LA, USA at that time, executed an SPA in favor of Atty.Aceron for the purpose of filing an action against the respondents. Atty. Aceron, in

behalf of the petitioners filed a complaint for sum of money (2006) against the

respondents with the RTC Quezon City (where the Atty. resides).

Respondents moved to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and prescription andasserted that the complaint against them should be filed in the place where either they

or the petitioners reside.

RTC denied the MTD, since there exist a SPA, Atty. Aceron (attorney-in-fact), may file inQC. Being the plaintiff, venue may lie where he resides as provided in Sec. 2, Rule 4 of

the Rules of Court.

Respondents filed an MR, but it was denied. They filed a Petition for Certiorari to the CAasserting that petitioners, that the complaint may only be filed in the RTC Bacolod City,the court of the place where they reside in the Philippines.

They further claimed that said attorney, being merely a representative of the petitioners,is not the real party in interest.

CA ruled in favor of the respondents and directed the dismissal of the complaint filed bythe petitioners. Being the attorney-in-fact is of no moment when it comes to

ascertaining the venue of cases filed in behalf of the principal since what should be

considered is the residence of the real party in interest. Residence is vital when dealing

with venue, the petitioners being residents of LA, which is beyond the territorialjurisdiction, the case should have been filed in Bacolod City. Petitioner sought and MR,

but denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Aceron, being the attorney-in-fact of petitioner spouses can be

considered as real party in interest?

8/13/2019 Ang vs. Ang.docx

2/2

HELD:

No. Atty. Aceron is not a real party in interest, thus his residence is immaterial to the venue of

the filing of the complaint.

Section 2. Parties in interest A real party in interest is the party who stands to

be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to theavails of the suit. X x x

Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material interest or an interest in

issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere

curiosity about the questioned involved. A real party in interest is the party who, by the

substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced.

Applying the said rule, Atty. Aceron is not a real party in interest as he does not stand to be

benefited or injured by any judgment therein. He was merely appointed as attorney-in-fact

limited for the purpose of filing and prosecuting the complaint. It does not mean that he is

subrogated in to the rights of petitioners and ought to be considered as real party in interest.

Petitioners reliance on Sec. 3, Rule 3 is misplaced because it merely provides that the name or

names of the person or persons being represented must be included in the title of the case and

shall be considered as the real party in interest, in other words, the principal remains the true

party in interest and not the representative.