E2. Venue

Question 1

VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS

Defendant does not reside but IS FOUND in the Philippines

Personal actions
Real actions

Answer 1

Personal actions

The venue is where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the non-resident defendant may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. (Riano, 2019, citing Sec. 2, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)

Real actions

It shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (Id. citing Sec. 1, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)

Question 2

Defendant does not reside and IS NOT FOUND in the Philippines

Answer 2

The action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found. (Sec. 3, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)

NOTE: Unless the Court declares otherwise, it is submitted that a liberal interpretation of Sec. 3, Rule 4 – giving the plaintiff a choice of venue in actions affecting any property of a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines – would well serve the interest of a resident plaintiff rather than of the possible absconding non-resident defendant. (Riano, 2019)

RATIONALE: A more liberal interpretation of the rule would save the plaintiff from going through the rigors of travelling to a distant place to file and prosecute the action. A contrary interpretation would lead to an unfortunate situation wherein the defendant who refuses to pay a just debt would have the capacity to cause so much inconvenience to an aggrieved plaintiff. (Riano, 2019)

Question 3

When the Rules on Venue do not apply

Answer 3

1. In cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise (e.g., an action for damages arising from libel); or
2. Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue. (Sec. 4, Rule 4, ROC, as amended)

Question 4

Stipulations on Venue (W-E-B)

Answer 4

The parties may stipulate on the venue as long as the agreement is:

1. In writing;
2. Exclusive as to the venue; and
3. Made before the filing of the action. (Sec. 4(b), Rule 4, ROC, as amended)

The parties may agree on a specific venue which could be in a place where neither of them resides.

Question 5

Written Stipulations as to Venue are either Mandatory or Permissive

Answer 5

In interpreting stipulations, an inquiry must be made as to whether or not the agreement is restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or permissive in that the parties may file their suits not only in the place agreed upon, but also in the places fixed by the Rules. (Supena v. De la Rosa, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1031, 28 Jan. 1997)

Question 6

When Venue is Exclusive

Answer 6

Venue is exclusive when the stipulation clearly indicates, through qualifying and restrictive words that the parties deliberately exclude causes of actions from the operation of the ordinary permissive rules on venue and that they intended contractually to designate a specific venue to the exclusion of any other court also competent and accessible to the parties under the ordinary rules on venue of actions. (Philippine Banking Corp. v. Tensuan, G.R. No. 106920, 10 Dec. 1993)

In the absence of restrictive words, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue. While they are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4 in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. If the language is restrictive, the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon by the parties. (Spouses Lantin v. Lantion, G.R. No. 160053, 28 Aug. 2006)

Question 7

Example of Words with Restrictive Meaning

Answer 7

1. Only;
2. Solely;
3. Exclusively in this court;
4. In no other court save - ;
5. Particularly;
6. Nowhere else but/except;
7. Words of similar import. (Pacific Consultants International Asia, Inc. v. Schonfeld, G.R. No. 166920, 19 Feb. 2007)

Question 8

In cases where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its validity:

Answer 8

NOTE: In cases where the complaint assails only the terms, conditions, and/or coverage of a written instrument and not its validity, the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein shall still be binding on the parties, and thus, the complaint may be properly dismissed on the ground of improper venue. (Briones v. CA, G.R. No. 204444, 14 Jan. 2015)

Conversely, therefore, a complaint directly assailing the validity of the written instrument itself should not be bound by the exclusive venue stipulation contained therein and should be filed in accordance with the general rules on venue. To be sure, it would be inherently consistent for a complaint of this nature to recognize the exclusive venue stipulation when it, in fact, precisely assails the validity of the instrument in which such stipulation is contained. (Ibid.)

Question 9

venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another

Answer 9

NOTE: Although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by agreement of the parties in writing pursuant to Rule 4, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of the claimants. (Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Hon. Bernardo Teves, GR. No. L-37750, 19 May 1978)

Question 10

Q: Nutri-Asia purchased plastic containers from Hygienic Packaging Corporation (Hygienic). The sale was evidenced by Sales Invoice and Purchase Orders signed by the employee of Nutri-Asia. Subsequently, Hygienic filed a complaint for sum of money before the RTC of Manila pursuant to the stipulation in the sales invoice that “any action arising from the transaction should be filed with the City of Manila.” Nutri-Asia argued that the venue was improperly laid since the complaint should have been filed either before the RTC of San Pedro, Laguna or RTC of Pasig City where the principal business of Hygienic and Nutri-Asia are located. The venue stated in the Sales Invoice could not bind Nutri-Asia since it did not give its express conformity to the stipulation. Is the venue improperly laid?

Answer 10

A: YES. There is lack of any written contract of sale containing the specific terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. They failed to provide evidence of any contract which could have contained stipulations on the venue. The Court cannot consider Sales Invoice and the Purchase Orders as contracts that would bind the parties as to the venue of the dispute resolution. The signing of the Purchase Orders by Nutri-Asia’s employee was limited to acknowledging Hygienics’s order and facilitating the payment. Since there is no contractual stipulation that can be enforced on the venue, the rules on venue under the Rules of Court shall govern. (Hygienic Packaging Corporation v. Nutri-Asia, Inc., doing business under the name and style of UFC Philippines, G.R. No. 201302, 23 Jan. 2019)