This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-02-19 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held by this Court in the vintage case of Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan,[31] is that 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 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them.[32] | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The RTC of Quezon City dismissed the complaint against CBC and Lim based on this stipulation, but the Court of Appeals reversed said dismissal. According to the Court of Appeals, absent any qualifying or restrictive words, a stipulation on venue should be considered merely as an agreement on an additional forum, and not to be considered as limiting venue to the specified place.[8] | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
|||||
| It is elementary that objections to venue in CIVIL ACTIONS arising from libel may be waived since they do not involve a question of jurisdiction. The laying of venue is procedural rather than substantive, relating as it does to jurisdiction of the court over the person rather than the subject matter. Venue relates to trial and not to jurisdiction.[20] It is a procedural, not a jurisdictional, matter. It relates to the place of trial or geographical location in which an action or proceeding should be brought and not to the jurisdiction of the court.[21] It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial.[22] In contrast, in criminal actions, it is fundamental that venue is jurisdictional it being an essential element of jurisdiction.[23] | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. It is meant to provide convenience to the parties, rather than restrict their access to the courts as it relates to the place of trial.[29] Thus, the last paragraph of Section 51 of Rep. Act No. 296 provided that in land registration cases, the Secretary of Justice, who was then tasked with the administration and supervision of all courts, may transfer land registration courts "to any other place more convenient to the parties." This implied that Land Registration Case No. 299 could be retained in the Cavite City branch of the CFI if it would be convenient to the applicants who had been used to transacting business with that branch; the case did not have to be transferred to Tagaytay City. Parenthetically, Circular No. 46 dated July 3, 1963 that then Secretary of Justice Juan R. Liwag addressed to all CFI judges and clerks of court in line with the enforcement of Rep. Act No. 3947, merely quotes Section 6 thereof. Said circular does not elucidate on whether cases should be transferred to the branches that had territorial jurisdiction over them. | |||||