[SUBJECTCivPro] | [TOPIC Venue] 1

[Digest maker Kyle Subido]

CASE NAME Philippine Banking Corp v

Tensuan
[GR NO. 104649] | [DATE Feb. 28, 1994] | [PONENTE Nocon, J.]

CASE SUMMARY petitioners filed complaint with RTC Makati. Private respondents
are saying the promissory notes which the complaint is based on says they submit to
jurisdiction of RTC Manila so improper venue laid. RTC Granted this but they said
there are 2 rules on venue that contradict so review on certiorari by SC to fix the
rules.

SC says no it wasnt improper venue laid. The 2 cases cited in the RTC stage show
how the rule changed over time. Current rule is the one in the doctrine. Essentially,
stipulating another venue other than that provided in the ROC is allowed, they dont
replace the rule in ROC though. In the absence of qualifying/restrictive words, they
dont limit the venue to only that place but count as just agreeing to adding that as a
potential forum.

DOCTRINE venue stipulations in a contract, while considered valid and enforceable,

do not as rule supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of
Court. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, they should be considered
merely as an agreement on additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified
place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. For, to restrict venue only to that
place stipulated in the agreement is a construction purely based on technicality
which, on the contrary, should be liberally construed

FACTS bullet points

Petitioners filed a complaint with prayer for Preliminary Attachment vs private
respondents (Brinell Metal Works Corporation and Spouses Jose and Nally Ang)
for collection of a loan evidenced by 2 promissory notes. This was granted by
the RTC Makati
Private respondents then filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds:
o Lack of jurisdiction over persons of the defendants
o Improper venue
RESPO CLAIM: summons were served on defendant corporations customer who
was not authorized to receive the same for and in behalf of them.
o Also said the complaint is based on 2 promissory notes that
declare
I/WE HEREBY EXPRESSLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURTS OF MANILA, ANY LEGAL ACTION WHICH MAY
ARISE OUT OF THIS PROMISSORY NOTE (essentially,
sinasabi nila dapat sa Manila yung venue, not Makati)
RTC: Granted, agreed with improper venue issue raised MR filed by Petitioner
o Petitioner argued that there were no qualifying words restricting venue to
Manila. Plaintiff still has choice to file action in place of residence (consent
 to be sued in stipulated venue lang if ever)[cited Polytrade Corp v Blanco]
MR DENIED.
RTC: Cited Bautista v Hon. De Borja
o neither party reserved the right to choose venue as provided for
in Section 2(b), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, as would have been
done had the parties intended to retain such right of election.
o Polytrade and Bautista case seem to contradict so rules need to be
defined
R45 petition for review on certiorari to SC

PROCEDURE SUMMARY

Action (Petition for review, appeal Decision (RTC: petition denied)

of CA decision etc.)
Complaint with prayer for Preliminary RTC Granted
attachment for collection of a loan
Motion to dismiss the complaint RTC Granted
Motion for reconsideration of the MTD RTC Denied
petition for review on certiorari w/ SC SC Granted, RTC order REVERSED
(went straight to SC thru R45)

ISSUE state all issues first. Bold the one related to the subject
1. WON the respondent court erred in holding that the venue of the
action was improperly laid. YES

RATIO Bold important words or phrases

WON the respondent court erred in holding that the venue of the
action was improperly laid. YES
Section 1(c), Rule of the Revised Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss an
action may be made within the time for pleading on the ground that
venue is improperly laid.
o The matter of venue is regulated by the Rules of Court, so that
the choice of venue is not left to the caprices of plaintiff.
As a general rule, all personal 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.
o However, by written agreement of the parties, the venue of an action
may be changed or transferred from one province to another.
when improper venue is not objected to in a motion to dismiss it is deemed
waived
o merely procedural, not jurisdictional matter intended for convenience of
parties, do not relate to power, authority, or jurisdiction over subject
matter
an agreement in a contract fixing the venue of actions arising therefrom is a
valid waiver of the venue as fixed by law.
The Bautista case came first, then the Polytrade decision came next.
Subsequent cases followed the rule set in Polytrade. The conclusion to be
 [SUBJECTCivPro] | [TOPIC Venue] 3
[Digest maker Kyle Subido]

drawn from all these is that the more recent jurisprudence shall
properly be deemed modificatory of the old ones. [SEE DIGESTERS
NOTES FOR FULL DISCUSSION ON THIS]
CURRENT RULE: Venue stipulations in a contract, while considered
valid and enforceable, do not as rule supersede the general rule set
forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court. In the absence of
qualifying or restrictive words, they should be considered merely as an
agreement on additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified
place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive.
o For, to restrict venue only to that place stipulated in the agreement is a
construction purely based on technicality which, on the contrary, should
be liberally construed.

DECISION bullet points. Dont copy and paste

Petition granted. RTC Order Reversed, Civil case REINSTATED

SEPARATE OPINION delete if N/A

Dissenting [Justice Padilla]

in cases where both parties freely and voluntarily agree on a specified place to
be the venue of actions, if any, between them, then the only considerations
should be whether the waiver (of the venue fixed by the Rules of
Court) is against public policy and whether the parties would suffer, by
reason of such waiver, undue hardship and inconvenience
IN THIS CASE: no showing that any party would, in any way, be unduly
inconvenienced in adhering to their agreed venue; besides, the two (2) venues
involved, namely Makati and Manila, are so geographically close to each other,
such that there is no perceivable reason why there would be any substantial
difference between the said two (2) venues. In such a case, the venue
agreed by the parties should control.

DIGESTERS NOTES
Engel v Shubert Theatrical Co: "In case of dispute, both contracting parties
agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Vienna courts" interpretation of
Court: They do agree to submit to the Viennese jurisdiction, but they say not a
word in restriction of the jurisdiction of courts elsewhere
Nicolas v Reparations Commission: While the parties have agreed to
submit their dispute to the jurisdiction of the Manila courts, there is nothing in
the language used in the aforecited stipulation which clearly shows that the
intention of the parties was to limit the venue of the action to the City of Manila
only. Such agreements should be construed reasonably and should not be
 applied in such a manner that it would work more to the inconvenience of the
parties without promoting the ends of justice.
Tantoco v CA: the parties agreed to add the courts of Manila as tribunals to
which they may resort in the event of suit, and not only to the courts either of
Rizal, of which private respondent is a resident, or of Bulacan, where petitioner
resides, pursuant to Section 2(b) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court.
7 other cases cited which espouse this rule (Court didnt write what
they said na)

Delete gray parts