Diaz vs.

Adiong, March 5, 1993 filed and could no longer deprive the trial court of
jurisdiction to hear and decide the said case;
Facts: 4. While objections to venue in civil actions arising
from libel can be waived; it does not after all,
1. On July 6, 1991, the Mindanao Kris, published in
involve a question of jurisdiction. Indeed, the
Cotabato City, published a news article entitled
laying of venue is procedural rather than
“Toll of Corruption” which exposed alleged
substantive. Venue relates to trial and not to
anomalies by key officials in the Regional Office
jurisdiction.
of DENR;
2. Public officials alluded instituted a separate civil
and criminal actions arising from libel before City
Prosecutor Office and Regional Trial Court in
Marawi City against petitioner;
3. The City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the
criminal case complaint for lack of jurisdiction
since the said complaint should be filed in
Cotabato City;
4. As for the civil complaint it was docketed in the
RTC of Marawi City, and that the defendant had
filed their respective answers w/ counterclaim;
5. Diaz moved for the dismissal of the case on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction, it was their
contention that the case should be filed in RTC of
Cotabato since it is where the private 1.
respondents who are all public officers held their
office, similarly the libelous publication was
published in that place

Issue: WON, RTC Marawi City has jurisdiction over the

said case

Held: No, not one of the respondents held office in

Marawi City

1. An offended party who is at the same time a

public official can only institute an action arising
from libel in 2 venues: the place where he holds
office and place where the alleged libelous
articles were published;
2. The venue is improperly laid. However, unless
and until the defendant objects to the venue in a
motion to dismiss prior to a responsive pleading,
the venue cannot be truly be said to have been
improperly laid, since the venue though
technically wrong may yet be considered
acceptable to the parties for whose convenience
the rules on venue had been devised;
3. In this case, Diaz, should have timely challenged
the venue in Marawi City in a motion to dismiss,
pursuant to Sec 4, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court.
Unfortunately, petitioner had already submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the TC when he filed
his Answer to the Complaint with Counterclaim.
His motion to dismiss was therefore belatedly