Rule 4

VENUE OF ACTIONS
Q: Define venue.
A: VENUE is the place where the action must be instituted and tried. (Ballentines Law
Dict., 2nd Ed., p. 1132)
EXAMPLE: The venue of the action is in Davao, or the venue of the action is in Manila. If
you file the action in other places, that is improper or wrong venue. In criminal cases, that
is called territorial jurisdiction the place where the crime was committed. But in civil
cases, venue is not the same with jurisdiction. We do not call it territorial jurisdiction. We
call it venue.
This is where it is important to determine whether the action is real or personal for the
purpose of venue. The venue of real action is stated in Section 1 and the venue for
personal action is stated in section 2.
VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS
Section 1. Venue of real actions. Actions affecting title to
of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.
Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and
municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the
involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (1[a], 2[a]a)

or possession
tried in the
real property
tried in the
real property

While it is true that the rule on venue is new however, the rule on venue even before
1997 as earlier as August 1, 1995, Rule 4 of the 1964 Rules has already been amended by
the administrative Circular No. 13-95, but now it incorporated under the Rules of 1997.
Now, when the action is real, we distinguish whether it is forcible entry and unlawful
detainer or action publiciana or action reinvidicatoria. If it is accion publiciana or
reinvidicatoria, the proper venue is the one which has jurisdiction over the area wherein
the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. Of course, the RTC is divided
into areas. every branch has its own designated area of responsibility.
Q: Why does the law say tried in the proper court?
A: It is because proper court will now be the MTC or the RTC, depending on the
assessed value of the property. If the assessed value is P20,000 or less, MTC yan. If it is
over P20,000, it should be in the RTC.
Now in the case of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, paragraph 2 will apply that is,
MTC it is in the municipality or city wherein the real property involved or a portion
thereof is situated. So, kung saan iyong real property, doon din ang venue. Now, it is
possible that for a property be in the boundary of two towns. Example: one half is part of
Davao City and the other half is in the municipality of Panabo. So, if you would like to file
a case for forcible entry against somebody, you have two choices. You can file it in the
MTC of Panabo or in the MTC of Davao City.
Now, lets go to personal actions.
VENUE OF REAL ACTIONS
Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions may
tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or
non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election
(2[b]a)

be commenced and
resides, or where
in the case of a
of the plaintiff.

Iyan ang tinatawag natin na TRANSITORY ACTION . The venue will now depend on the
residence of the parties. In the civil action, the venue is (1) the place where the plaintif

JBD

95

resides or (2) where the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintif. So, puwede
kang pumili sa dalawa.
Now, suppose, there are four (4) plaintifs and 4 defendants and the 4 plaintifs reside
in 4 diferent cities or municipalities. So ang choice mo ng venue ay walo (8) becuae the
law says, where the plaintif or any of the principal plaintifs or where the defendant or
any of the principal defendants reside
So,kung maraming defendants at iba-iba ang lugar at maraming plaintifs, the
residence of each one could be the proper venue.
NOTE: PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFF, PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT. Because there is such a thing as
nominal defendant and nominal plaintif iyun bang formal lang.
EXAMPLE of a nominal party: When a party wants to file a case to annul an execution
sale of to annul a levy, normally it pleads the sherif as party. But the sherif is not the
principal party but is only a NOMINAL PARTY. So, the residence of the sherif is not
considered the sherif being a nominal party only.
So, just imagine if there are 4 plaintifs and 4 defendants, iba-ibang cities. There 8
choices of venue. That is the original concept of forum shopping. I will cite the original
case which traced the history of forum-shopping na kung saan ako convenient, doon sko
mag-file. That is the original concept which is legal and legitimate. The trouble is, the
concept of forum shopping degenerated into a malpractice , where a lawyer, mag-file ng
case, sabay-sabay. Ayan! That is why there is a SC case which I will later discuss where
Justice Panganiban cited the history of forum shopping. (Dean is referring to the case of
FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK vs. CA (252 SCRA 259), January 24, 1996)
Forum shopping is legitimate and valid but the trouble is, the practice acquired another
unsavory meaning, where a lawyer will file simultaneous cases. Kaya nga nasira from a
legitimate practice to an act of malpractice. That is the history of forum shopping.
However, there are instances when it is easy to distinguish whether the action is real or
personal and there are also instances when it is difficult.
EXAMPLE: An action for annulment of a contract of sale or rescission of contract of sale
of real property. Generally, an action for annulment or rescission is a personal action. But
suppose , I will file a complaint to annul or rescind a contract of a deed of sale over a
parcel of land. Im from Davao and youre from Davao. But I would like to annul the sale of
a land which I made to you one year ago which land is situated in Digos and the purpose
of my action is to recover the ownership of that land. Then, that is a real action because
the primary object of the suit is to recover the ownership of real property, di ba? It seems
to be personal but in reality it is a real action. So the venue is governed by Section 2.
But there are also actions na King tingnan mo parang real but in reality, they are
personal actions. Like what happened in the case of
LA TONDEA DISTILLERS INC vs. PONFERRADA
264 SCRA 540 [1996]
FACTS: Judee entered into a contract where she committed herself to sell her
land to Maying. And Judee even placed a lis pendens on the property. But later
Judee said, Gua bo ai! (chinese for ayoko na!) Nag-back out ba! So Maying
will file a case against Judee for specific performance to compel her to sign the
deed of sale.
Ang question diyan, ano ba ito? real or personal action? Because if it is real
action, the complaint should be filed in the place where the land is situated. If
the action is personal, it can be filed in Davao City where both of them are
residents.
ISSUE: Is this real or personal action?

JBD

96

HELD: It is a PERSONAL ACTION because you are not questioning my

ownership. Here, the plaintif recognizes that the defendant is still the owner.
Kaya nga he is still filing the case to compel him to sell.
Thus, it should be filed in the residence of the parties. The complaint is one
for specific performance with damages. Private respondents do not claim
ownership of the lot but in fact recognized title of defendants by annotating a
notice of lis pendens. In one case, a similar complaint for specific performance
with damages involving real property, was held to be a personal action, which
may be filed in the proper court where the party resides. Not being an action
involving title to or ownership of real property, venue, in this case, was not
improperly laid before the RTC of Bacolod City. (Adamos vs. Tuazon 25 SCRA 30
[1968])
So it is not really an action afecting title or ownership because you are still recognizing
the title of the owner of the property. It is diferent when Im no longer recognizing it, like
recovery or reinvidicatoria. These are gray areas, or sometimes very hard to distinguish
whether the action is real or personal.
Q: [Taken from Remedial Law Reviewer by Nuevas] Where several or alternative reliefs
are sought in an action, and the reliefs prayed for are real and personal, how is venue
determined?
A: Where several or alternative reliefs are prayed for in the complaint, the nature of
the action a s real or personal is determined by the primary object of the suit or by the
nature of the principal claim. Thus, where the purpose is to nullify the title to real property,
the venue of the action is in the province where the property lies, notwithstanding the
alternative relief sought, recovery of damages, which is predicated upon a declaration of
nullity of the title. (Navarro vs. Lucero, 100 Phil. 146)
Where a lessee seeks to establish his right to the hacienda, which was subsequently
sold, for the purpose of gathering the crops thereon, it is unnecessary to decide whether
the crops are real or personal property, because the principal claim is recovery of
possession of land so that he may gather the fruits thereof. (LTC vs. Macadaeg, 57 O.G.
3317)
Now, going back to Section 2.
RESIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
We will now go the issue of residence. Where is the residence of the parties? Because
residence in law could mean DOMICILE OR LEGAL RESIDENCE, it could be ACTUAL OR
PHYSICAL RESIDENCE.
Alam mo, iyong legal domicile, you may not be there but there is intention to go back
there someday. Alright, with the exception of only one case, the word residence and
venue has been uniformly interpreted by the SC to mean ACTUAL or PHYSICAL
RESIDENCE not legal domicile. Alright, there are so many case already: CO vs. CA (70
SCRA 296); FULE vs. CA (14 SCRA 189); HERNANDEZ vs. RURAL BANK OF THE PHIL (81
SCRA 75); RAYMOND vs. CA (166 SCRA 50); ESCUERTE vs. CA (193 3CRA 54).
Pareho ang ruling niyan. EXCEPT for one case decided way back in 1956 the case of
CORRE vs. CORRE
100 Phil 221
FACTS: An American who resides in San Francisco who came to the
Philippines rented an apartment in Manila to sue his wife who is a Filipina. The
wife is from Mindanao. And then the American husband filed the case in Manila
because residente man daw siya in Manila because he rented daw an
apartment in Manila. Now, if you follow the rule, tama man ang husband ba.

JBD

97

HELD: You are not a resident of Manila. Your residence is in San Francisco
that is your domicile. So that is to compel the American to file the case in the
residence of the wife rather than the wife going to Manila.
So the case of CORRE is the only exception where the SC said, residence means
domicile. All the rest, physical! In the case of CORRE, maybe the SC there was just trying
to help the Filipina. If we will interpret the rule on venue as physical, it is the Filipina who
will be inconvenienced. If we say legal residence is the venue, it is the American husband
who would be forced to go to the Mindanao to file. And we should favor our own
kababayan. Yan siguro ang nangyari because that was the only exception eh.
RESIDENCE OF A CORPORATION
Under Rule 1, a corporation can sue and be sued. But what is the residence of a
corporation? Under the corporation law, the residence of a corporation is the place where
its head or main office is situated yung head office ba which is usually stated in the
articles of incorporation.
Now, lets go to some interesting cases on this issue:
CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM vs. ANTILLON
19 SCRA 39 [1967]
FACTS: Clavecilla was sued in Cagayan de Oro City. Clavecilla questioned the
venue because its head office is in Manila. The plaintif argued that it can be
sued because it has a branch in Cagayan.
ISSUE: Is a corporation a resident of any city or province wherein it has an
office or branch?
HELD: NO. Any person, whether natural or juridical, can only have one
residence. Therefore, a corporation cannot be allowed to file personal actions in
a place other than its principal place of business unless such a place is also the
residence of a co-plaintif or defendant.
The ruling in the case of ANTALLON was reiterated in the 1993 case of YOUNG AUTO
SUPPLY CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS (223 SCRA 670)
Because the law said where the plaintif or any of the principal plaintifs.. So if the
corporation is suing with someone from Davao, even if my head office is in Manila, I can
file because of the residence of my co-plaintif or the residence of the defendant. But
outside of that, a corporation cannot sue outside of its head office because its residence is
there. That is the case of YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY.
OR IN THE CASE OF A NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANTS WHERE HE MAY BE FOUND
Suppose the defendnt is not residing here in the Philippines but is just on vacation and
you want to sue him. What is now the point of reference?
Did you notice the phrase or in the case of a non-resident defendants where he may
be found. Now what does that mean? It means to say that the defendant is not actually
residing in the Philippines but he is temporarily around because he is found in the
Philippines. Example is a balikbayan who is still on vacation.
PROBLEM: Suppose a Filipino who is already residing abroad decided to come back this
Christmas for a vacation. When he landed at the Manila Domestic Airport and you are his
friend and the first thing he requested you is, wala pa akong Philippine peso, puro pa
dollars. So pahiramin mo muna ako. I will pay you in one weeks time once I have my
dollars exchanged to pesos. How much do you want? He borrowed from you P15,000.00.
One week later, still he has not paid you and obviously it seems he will not pay you. So

JBD

98

you decided to sue him while he is around to collect the case advance of the P15,000 that
you gave him. So, where is the venue of the action?
A: The law says, generally where the plaintif resides or where the defendant resides.
The trouble is, the defendant has no residence here because he is already residing
abroad. But he is temporarily here in the Philippines.
You can sue him where he may be found. If he decides to stay in Cebu, that is where
the proper venue rather his permanent residence. So where he may be found is the
alternative venue. The phrase where he may be found means where he may be found
here in the Philippines for a non-resident defendant but temporarily staying in the
Philippines.
Q: Suppose a defendant is a non-resident and he is not even here. Like for example,
your neighbor borrowed money from you and the nest thing you heard is that he left the
country. He has already migrated to the states. Of course you know his address there. Can
you sue him in the Philippine court, a defendant who is no loner residing here and is not
found in the Philippines?
A: NO, you cannot. Charge it to experience.
Q: Why can you not sue a person not residing here in the Philippines and is not found
here in the first place?
A: There is no way for Philippine courts to acquire jurisdiction over his person.
Otherwise, he will not be bound by the decision.
But in our discussion on the element of jurisdiction: subject matter, person, res and
issues, I told you that the res or the thing in dispute is important because sometimes it
takes the place of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. So even if the Philippine
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but the subject of the
controversy (res) is in the Philippines, then the non-resident defendant can also be sued in
the Philippines. The court can now acquire jurisdiction over the res, subject and since the
res is here, the judgment can be enforced. It is not a useless judgement anymore.
EXAMPLE: He is there but he is the owner of a piece of land here. I want to file a case to
recover ownership over the land here in the Philippines, yaan!
Q: Can I sue the non-resident defendant?
A: YES under Section 3. Even if the person is abroad, the res of the property in dispute
is here and if he loses the case the judgment can be enforced transfer the property to
you. So it is not a useless judgment. That is what Section 3 is all about.
Sec. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. - If any of the defendants
does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in
the Philippines, 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, (2[c]a)

Q: What is the diference between the non-resident defendant in Section 2 and the nonresident defendant in Section 3?
A: In Section 2, the non-resident defendant may be found in the Philippines. But in
Section 3, he does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. So, physically, he is not
around.
Q: What actions can be filed against a non-resident defendant who is not even found
here in the Philippines?
A: There are two (2):
1.) The action that afects the personal status of the plaintif; or
2.) The action afects the property or any portion thereof of said defendants is
located here in the Philippines.
ACTION THAT AFFECTS THE PERSONAL STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF

JBD

99

EXAMPLE: A young child was abandoned by his illegitimate father. The illegitimate
father left the Philippines for good. The son wants to file a case against the father for
compulsory recognition, at least to improve his status.
Q: Can the child file a case for compulsory acknowledgment here in the Philippines
against the father for compulsory acknowledgment?
A: YES because the action involves the person status of the plaintif. The res is the
status of the plaintif who happens to be in the Philippines.
THE ACTION AFFECTS THE PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF OF SAID
DEFENDANTS IS LOCATED HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES
Example: The defendant who is already abroad owns a piece of land located here in the
Philippines and I want to recover the ownership of the piece of land.
Q: What is the res?
A: The res is the land which is situated here in the Philippines. Therefore I can sue that
defendant even if he is there because the court can acquire jurisdiction over the res.
In order to validly sue in the Philippine court, a defendant who is no longer residing
here and is no longer found here, the action must be: 1.) action in rem; or 2.) at least
quasi-in rem, because if the action iis for compulsory recognition, that is actually an
action in rem. If the suit in involves a property here in the Philippines, at least that is an
action quasi-in rem.
But if the action is purely in personam, then there is no way by which you can sue him.
Example is an action to collect an unpaid loan.
Q: Where is now the proper venue of the action against the non-residents?
A: The law says where the plaintif resides action which afects the personal status of
defendants, where the property of the defendant located here in the Philippines

Sec. 4. When rule not applicable. - this rule shall not apply a)In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or
b)Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the
action on the exclusive venue thereof. (3a, 5a)

A.) IN THOSE CASES WHERE A SPECIFIC RULE OR LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE;

So, when there is a special rule or law on venue which applies only to certain types of
cases, then that rule will apply rather than Rule 4.
Q: What cases which provides for venue of the action which may be diferent from what
Rule 4 says?
A: The following:
1.) A civil action arising from LIBEL under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code.
Libel could give rise to a civil action for damages. It is considered under the RPC
as one of the independent civil actions. The criminal action for libel shall be filed
simultaneously or separately with the RTC of the:
a.) province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published; or
b.) where any of the ofended parties actually resides at the time of the
commission of the ofense.
If one of the ofended party is a public officer, whose office is in the City of
Manila at the time of the commission of the ofense, the action shall be filed (a) in
the RTC of Manila, or (b) in the RTC of the province where he held office at the time
of the commission of the ofense.

JBD

100

2.) Section 5 (4), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution The SC may order a change of venue
or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice as what happened in the case of
Mayor Sanchez.
So these are the examples on the special rules. Alright
B.) WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE VALIDLY AGREED IN WRITING BEFORE
THE FILING OF THE ACTION ON THE EXCLUSIVE VENUE THEREOF.
So, it is possible that A and B will enter into contract providing for suits involving the
violation of the contract, the venue shall be in this particular place. Take note that the
stipulation must be in writing and it is there even before the filing of the action. Alright
EXAMPLE: Contracts of banks and other financing companies. Sometimes it says there
that in case of suits arising out of these contract, the action shall be filed in the City of
Makati or Manila which is neither the residence of the parties.
Q: Now, can we agree to file a case other that were the parties reside?
A: YES because the law says, we can agree on a place where the action will be filed
provided it is in writing and it is stipulated even before the filing of the action.
POLYTRADE CORP. vs. BLANCO
30 SCRA 187
FACTS: Charles and Joshua are both residing here in Davao City. Joshua
borrowed money from Charles, and Joshua executed a promissory note in favor
of Charles which says, I promise to pay Charles the sum of P200,000 one year
from today. In case of a suit arising from this promissory note, the parties agree
to sue and be sued in the City of Manila.
When the note matured, Joshua did not pay. Charles filed a case to collect the
unpaid loan here in Davao City. Charles challenged the venue. According to
Charles, the venue is correct because both of us are residing here in Davao City
and under Rule 4, the venue is where I reside or you reside, at my option. Both of
us are residing here so I sued you here.
Defendant Joshua says, no since there is a stipulation we both agreed upon
that in cases of litigation, the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of
Manila. So Manila is the correct venue.
ISSUE: Who is correct in this case? A the plaintif or B the defendant?
HELD: Plaintif is correct notwithstanding the stipulation. Why? When the
parties stipulated on the venue of the civil action, other that those found in the
Rule of Court, the stipulated venue is considered merely as an ADDITIONAL
venue in addition to where the parties reside. Unless the stipulation contains
RESTRICTIVE words which shows the intention of the parties to limit the place
stipulated as the exclusive venue.
In other words, the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila, even if so,
the venue of the action is where the plaintif resides or where the defendant resides in
accordance with Rule 4, and the third venue is according to the stipulation of the parties.
So, the case here has three (3) venues of action. Mamili ka sa tatlong venues because
there is nothing in the agreement that the parties intended that Manila is the only
exclusive venue. There is no restrictive word.
I will change the PROBLEM: Suppose the stipulation contains this statement, in case of
suit arising out of this promissory note or contract, the parties agree to sue and be sued
exclusively in the City of Manila, yaan! Or, to sue and be sued in the City of Manila only.
The addition of the words exclusively or only shows the intention of the parties to limit

JBD

101

venue of the action only in that place. Therefore you cannot apply Rule 4, Sections 1-3. So,
in this case, Joshua can move to dismiss the case because the venue is exclusive.
So in the second exception where there is an agreement in writing on the exclusive
venue, the word exclusive is very important as taken in the ruling in POLYTRADE vs.
BLANCO. So if the venue is not exclusive, Rule 4 still applies and the stipulated venue is
just an additional one.
Of course, there are stipulations which you can see clearly the intention of the parties
to limit the venue only in that place. But sometimes, there are stipulations in which it is
difficult to decipher the real intention of the parties whether exclusive or not. Examples of
clear stipulations which calls for the application of the POLYTRADE ruling: in the City of
Manila only or the suit shall be filed in the City of Manila and in no other place.
However, there are cases in which you cannot find the word exclusive or the word only,
and yet the SC said it seems the intention of the parties to limit the venue as exclusive as
what happened in the 1994 case of
GESMUNDO vs. JRB REALTY CORP
234 SCRA 153
FACTS: This involves a lease contract which contain a stipulation on venue.
Here is the language of the lease contract: venue for all suits, whether for
breach hereof or damages or any cause between the LESSOR and the LESSEE,
and persons claiming under each, being the courts of appropriate jurisdiction in
Pasay City
In other words, if there is a case, they agreed to file it in the court of Pasay
City.
ISSUE: Is this intention of the parties to make Pasay City an exclusive venue?
HELD: Pasay City is the exclusive venue. It is true that in Polytrade
Corporation v. Blanco, a stipulation that The parties agree to sue and be sued in
the City of Manila was held to merely provide an additional forum in the absence
of any qualifying or restrictive words. But here, by laying in Pasay City the venue
for all suits, the parties made it plain that in no other place may they bring suit
against each other for breach contract or damages or any other cause between
them and persons claiming under each of them. In other words, the intention of
the parties is to make Pasay City the exclusive venue.
There are some cases in the SCRA where there is no restrictive word but the SC
interpreted it as restrictive. So it is in conflict with the POLYTRADE ruling because in
POLYTRADE, the stipulated place must be exclusive. Among the cases which seems to
conflict with the ruling in POLYTRADE are the following:
BAUTISTA vs. DE BORJA (18 SCRA 476)
HOECHST vs. TORRES (83 SCRA 297)
This conflict was resolved in the case of PHIL. BANKING vs. TENSUAN (228 SCRA 385)
where the SC ruled that the ruling in BAUTISTA vs. DE BORJA and HOECHST PHILS. vs.
TORRES has been rendered obsolete by the POLYTRADE ruling and subsequent cases
reiterated it. So the ruling in POLYTRADE is the correct ruling. Forget what the SC said in
the abovementioned two cases.
SWEET LINES vs. TEVES
83 SCRA 361
FACTS: This is a Cagayan de Oro case which involves Sweet Lines, a shipping
company with the head office in Cebu. The respondent Teves is the former City

JBD

102

Fiscal of Davao City, former Mayor and became judge of CFI of Cagayan de Oro
City.
There was a group of passenger who rode on the Sweet Lines bound for Cebu
City. During the trip, they were given a crude treatment by the officers of the
vessel. When they came back in Cagayan de Oro City, they filed a suit for
damages against Sweet Lines. They file dht ecase in the former CFI, now RTC, of
Cagayan de Oro City because the plaintifs are residents of Cagayan de Oro City.
Sweet Lines filed a motion to dismiss questioning the venue of the action
because in the ticket issued by Sweet Lines, it is stipulated that in case of a
civil action arising from the contract of carriage, the venue of the action shall be
the City of Cebu ONLY and in no other place. So there is a restrictive word.
Obviously the lawyers of Sweet Lines knew about Polytrade because they moved
to dismiss the case citing this case.
Judge Teves denied the motion to dismiss the case despite the stipulation.
According to him, it is unfair. If I will dismiss the case based on this stipulation,
the aggrieved parties will be discouraged in going to Cebu. It is very expensive
and they will be inconvenienced. But, if the case will go on in Cagayan de Oro, it
will not inconvenienced Sweet Lines because they have their branch office, their
manage and their own lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cagayan de Oro is the proper venue.
HELD: YES. Judge Teves was correct in not dismissing the case.
First of all, the stipulation is placed in the ticket. These people never even
bothered to read this. Nakalagay na iyan diyan eh. So either you take it or you
leave it. Therefore, the passengers did not have a hand in preparing that
stipulation. So the contract is a contract of adhesion.
Second, again for the sake of equity, to be fair that these poor people will be
compelled to go to Cebu to file a case there. They will be discouraged. It is very
expensive to go back and forth to Cebu. Whereas, Sweet Lines has the
resources, the means, the lawyers here in Cagayan to litigate. Therefore, it
would be inequitable to compel them or to apply the stipulation there.
The ruling in SWEET LINES is an exception to POLYTRADE despite the exclusive
stipulation. The SC said that the refusal of the court to apply it is correct. There is no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Teves.
ARQUERO vs. FLOJO
168 SCRA 540
FACTS: Arquero here is lawyer and the municipal mayor of the municipality of
Sta. Teresita, Cagayan Valley. He sent a telegram through the RCPI branch in
Cagayan addressed to Manila. Meron siyang pabor na hihingi-in sa Congressman:
I will go there to Manila, I will see you in your office on this particular date. So
pinadala niya iyong telegrama.
When he went to the office of the congressman after the few days, nagalit pa
yung congressman sa kanya, So you are here to ask for a favor for your own.
Ikaw na ang nangangailangan, pati telegrama ako pa ang pabayarin mo?!
Collect pa! Arquero was stunned eh because he paid the telegram. How come
naging collect? In efect, he was embarrased.
Pagbalik niya sa Cagayan, f-in-ile-an niya ng damages ang RCPI. But in the
RCPI telegraph form, there is a stipulation that venue of any action shall be the
court of Quezon City alone and in no other courts. So the venue is restrictive.
With that, Arquero filed an action for damages in the RTC of Aparri Cagayan and
RCPI moved to dismiss for improper venue, stipulation according to the
POLYTRADE case eh.
The trial court moved to dismiss the case because of this restrictive
stipulation. Arquero went to the SC citing the case of SWEET LINES where
despite the fact of a restrictive stipulation, SC refused to apply the POLYTRADE
ruling.

JBD

103

HELD. The ruling in Sweet Lines vs. Teves does not apply. You are bound by
the stipulation. Why? You are a lawyer eh. Tarantado ka, bakit ka pumirma?! You
are a lawyer. You know all these things. Why did you sign?
So nayari siya. That was taken against him ha! As a matter of fact, it is there
you can read it. It is in the front, pumirma ka pa sa ilalim. In the case of Teves,
you cannot read it. Nasa likod, very small. In other words, you agree to be
bound. As a lawyer, you should know what you are signing.
Now, he last point to remember about venue is the diference between venue and
jurisdiction. In criminal cases, there is no distinction between jurisdiction and venue. The
place of the filing of the case is where the crime is committed or where the essential
elements were committed. Therefore, when the cases is committed in Davao City, you
cannot file a case in Cotabato City. Cotabato has no territorial jurisdiction over the case.
But in civil cases, if you violate Rule 4, do not say that the court has no jurisdiction. You
only say, venue was improperly laid. Yaan! So, if I will file an ejectment case against you in
Davao City before the MTC but I am ejecting you from your apartment in Tagum, do not
make the mistake. If I move to dismiss on the ground that the MTC has no jurisdiction, you
are crazy. The MTC has jurisdiction over all unlawful detainer cases. Ang walang
jurisdiction is the RTC. The correct ground is: venue is improperly laid. But if you file the
unlawful detainer case in the RTC, you question the jurisdiction of the court, not the place.
So then, what is the main distinction?
Q: Distinguish JURISDICTION from VENUE.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) JURISDICTION refers to the authority the court to hear the case, whereas
VENUE refers only to the place where the action is brought or tried;
2.) JURISDICTION over the subject matter cannot he waived; whereas
VENUE is waivable and can be subject of agreement;
3.) JURISDICTION is governed by substantive law Judiciary Law, BP 129; whereas
VENUE is governed by procedural law Rule 4 of the Rules of Court;
4.) JURISDICTION refers to the relation of the parties to the court; whereas
VENUE refers to the relation between the parties; and
5.) JURISDICTION limits the courts authority; whereas
VENUE limits plaintifs rights.
BAR QUESTION: State in what instance the jurisdiction and venue coincide.
A: In CRIMINAL CASES because in criminal cases, venue is territorial jurisdiction. But in
civil cases, jurisdiction and venue are two diferent things. They do not coincide.

JBD

104