This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, We agree with the Court of Appeals that it was incorrect for the RTC to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue. The parties must be able to show that the stipulation is exclusive. Thus, sans words expressing the parties' intention to restrict the filing of a suit in a particular place, courts will allow the filing of a case in any of the venues prescribed by law or stipulated by the parties, as long as the jurisdictional requirements are followed.[9] The subject clause contains no qualifying nor restrictive words, such as "must," or "exclusively," as would indicate the parties' intention "mandatorily to restrict the venue of actions to the courts of (Manila) only."[10] In the 8 December 2000 case of Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank,[11] where the venue stipulation contained the word "shall,"[12] we held that the stipulations of the parties "lack qualifying or restrictive words to indicate the exclusivity of the agreed forum,"[13] and therefore "the stipulated place is considered only as an additional, not a limiting venue."[14] Consequently, the dismissal by the RTC of the complaint against CBC and Lim on ground of improper venue is erroneous, and was correctly reversed by the Court of Appeals. | |||||