[G.R. No. 156966.

May 7, 2004]

PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. DELFINO TECSON,

respondent.
DECISION
Ponente: VITUG

Facts:
On various dates in 1996, Delfino C. Tecson applied for six (6) cellular phone subscriptions with
Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PILTEL), a company engaged in the telecommunications
business, which applications were each approved and covered, respectively, by six mobiline
service agreements.

On 05 April 2001, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Lanao Del
Norte, a complaint against petitioner for a Sum of Money and Damages.
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of improper venue.

RTC ruled in favor of Tecson. Affirmed by CA adding that the service agreements are contracts
of adhesion hence not binding on Tecson

Issue: WON there is improper venue

Held: Yes

Section 4, Rule 4, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure allows the parties to agree and
stipulate in writing, before the filing of an action, on the exclusive venue of any litigation
between them. Such an agreement would be valid and binding provided that the stipulation on
the chosen venue is exclusive in nature or in intent, that it is expressed in writing by the parties
thereto, and that it is entered into before the filing of the suit.
The provision contained in paragraph 22 of the Mobile Service Agreement, a standard contract
made out by petitioner PILTEL to its subscribers, apparently accepted and signed by respondent,
states that the venue of all suits arising from the agreement, or any other suit directly or
indirectly arising from the relationship between PILTEL and subscriber, shall be in the proper
courts of Makati, Metro Manila. The added stipulation that the subscriber expressly waives any
other venue should indicate, clearly enough, the intent of the parties to consider the venue
stipulation as being preclusive in character.

The appellate court, however, would appear to anchor its decision on the thesis that the
subscription agreement, being a mere contract of adhesion, does not bind respondent on the
venue stipulation.

A contract duly executed is the law between the parties, and they are obliged to comply fully and
not selectively with its terms. A contract of adhesion is no exception.