This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-08-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It bears emphasis that the causes of action on the assigned accounts are not based on a breach of the agreement between UHI and Cruz. They are based on separate, distinct and independent contracts-deeds of assignment in which UHI is the assignee of Cruz's obligations to the assignors FPC and USWCI. Thus, any action arising from the deeds of assignment cannot be subjected to the exclusive venue stipulation embodied in the agreement. So San Miguel Corporation v. Monasterio[14] enlightens:Exclusive venue stipulation embodied in a contract restricts or confines parties thereto when the suit relates to breach of said contract. But where the exclusivity clause does not make it necessarily encompassing, such that even those not related to the enforcement of the contract should be subject to the exclusive venue, the stipulation designating exclusive venues should be strictly confined to the specific undertaking or agreement. Otherwise, the basic principles of freedom to contract might work to the great disadvantage of a weak party-suitor who ought to be allowed free access to courts of justice.[15] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2007-02-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The aforequoted rule, however, finds no application where the parties, before the filing of the action, have validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue.[8] But the mere stipulation on the venue of an action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. It must be shown that such stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as "exclusively" and "waiving for this purpose any other venue,"[9] "shall only" preceding the designation of venue,[10] "to the exclusion of the other courts,"[11] or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place.[12] | |||||