You are on page 1of 2

POLYTRADE CORPORATION vs

BLANCO
G.R. No. L-27033 October 31, 1969
_________________________________
FACTS
Filed before lower court are 4
causes of action to recover purchase price
of rawhide delivered by plaintiff to
defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss on
the ground of improper venue. He claims
that suit may only be lodged in Manila. The
Bulacan court overruled him. He did not
answer the complaint, so a default
judgment was rendered against him
ordering him to pay plaintiff corporation in
those 4 counts.
Defendant appealed.
ISSUE
Whether or not venue was properly
laid in the province of Bulacan where
defendant is a resident.
DEFENDANTS CONTENTION
The written contracts stipulate that
"The parties agree to sue and be sued in
the Courts of Manila.
HELD
Sec 2 (b), Rule 4 on venue of
personal actions triable by CFI and this
is one provides that such "actions may
be commenced and tried where the
defendant or any of the defendants resides
or may be found, or where the plaintiff or
any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election
of the plaintiff."
Defendant places his case upon
Sec 3 that states: By written agreement of
the parties the venue of an action may be
changed or transferred from one province
to another."
Though it was a valid stipulation, it
does not preclude the filing of suits in the
residence of plaintiff or defendant. The
agreement did not change or transfer
venue. It simply is permissive. The parties
solely agreed to add the courts of Manila
as tribunals to which they may resort. They
did not waive their right to pursue remedy
in the courts specifically mentioned in

Section 2(b) of Rule 4. Renuntiatio non


praesumitur.
In Engel vs. Shubert Theatrical Co.:
"In case of dispute, both contracting
parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of
the Vienna courts." And the ruling is: "By
the clause in question the parties do not
agree to submit their disputes to the
jurisdiction of the Viennese court, and to
those courts only. There is nothing
exclusive in the language used. They do
agree to submit to the Viennese
jurisdiction, but they say not a word in
restriction of the jurisdiction of courts
elsewhere; x x x
Venue here was properly laid.

SWEET LINES vs. Judge TEVES


G.R. No. L-37750 May 19, 1978
_____________________________
FACTS
Private respondents Atty. Tandog
and Tiro were bound for Tagbilaran. Due to
many passengers, they were forced to
agree "to hide at the cargo section to avoid
inspection of the Philippine Coastguard,
and constrained to pay for other tickets.
They sued for damages and for breach of
contract of carriage in CFI-Misamis
Oriental.
Petitioner moved to dismiss due to
improper venue; premised on the condition
at the back of the tickets which reads: x x
x all actions arising out of the conditions
and provisions of this ticket, irrespective of
where it is issued, shall be filed in the
competent courts in Cebu. Motion denied.
This instant petition 'alleging that
the respondent judge has departed from
the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceeding" and "had acted in gross abuse
of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether or not CFI-Misamis is a proper
venue.
HELD
Yes.
The condition at the back of the
ticket is a "contract of adhesion.
In Fieldman Insurance v. Vargas: x
x x Such contracts obviously cap for
greater strictness and vigilance on the part
of the courts of justice with a view to
protecting the weaker party from abuses
and imposition, and prevent their
becoming traps for the unwary.
The condition should be held as
void and unenforceable for ff. reasons:
(1) it is not just and fair to bind
passengers to the terms of the
conditions.
Condition was prepared solely by
the petitioner, respondents had no say
in its preparation. It should also be

stressed that shipping companies are


franchise holders of certificates of
public convenience and therefore,
posses a virtual monopoly over the
business. They dictate their terms of
passage, leaving passengers with no
choice but to buy their tickets. The bulk
of those who board them come from
low-income groups and are less
literate, and who have little or no
choice but to avail of the vessels.
(2) Condition subverts the public policy
on transfer of venue of proceedings,
since it will prejudice rights and
interests of passengers in different
parts of the country who will have to
file suits in Cebu.
Although venue may be changed or
transferred from one province to another
by agreement of the parties in writing (Rule
4, Sec 3), such an agreement will not be
held valid where it practically negates the
action of the claimants.
Considering the expense and
trouble a passenger residing outside of
Cebu would incur to prosecute a claim in
Cebu, he would most probably decide not
to file the action at all. The condition will
thus defeat the ends of justice. On the
other hand, petitioner has branches or
offices in other ports and can afford to
litigate in any of these places. Hence, filing
of the suit in the CFI of Misamis Oriental,
as was done in the instant case, will not
cause inconvenience to, much less
prejudice, petitioner.
Petition dismissed.

You might also like