Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 160653 2008-07-23	JESUSITO D. LEGASPI v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The parties, however, are not precluded from agreeing in writing on an exclusive venue, as qualified by Section 4 of the same rule. Written stipulations as to venue may be restrictive in the sense that the suit may be filed only in the place agreed upon, or merely permissive in that the parties may file their suit not only in the place agreed upon but also in the places fixed by law. As in any other agreement, what is essential is the ascertainment of the intention of the parties respecting the matter.[10]
	GR NOS. 159669 - 163521 2007-03-12	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. v. ROSEMOORE MINING TINGA, J.
The Bank challenges the Malolos RTC's jurisdiction over the action to nullify the foreclosure sale of the Nueva Ecija properties along with the Bulacan properties. This question is actually a question of venue and not of jurisdiction,[50] which if improperly laid, could lead to the dismissal of the case.[51]
	GR NO. 166920 2007-02-19	PACIFIC CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ASIA v. KLAUS K. SCHONFELD 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]
	GR NO. 160053 2006-08-28	SPS. RENATO v. JANE AURORA C. LANTION QUISUMBING, J.
Private respondents counter that, in their complaint, petitioners did not assail the loan documents, and the issue of validity was merely petitioners' afterthought to avoid being bound by the venue stipulation. They also aver that the venue stipulation was not contrary to the doctrine in Unimasters,[5] which requires that a venue stipulation employ categorical and suitably limiting language to the effect that the parties agree that the venue of actions between them should be laid only and exclusively at a definite place. According to private respondents, the language of the stipulation is clearly exclusive.
	GR NO. 150197 2005-08-28	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. DON A. ALVIAR TINGA, J.
One other crucial point. The mortgage contract, as well as the promissory notes subject of this case, is a contract of adhesion, to which respondents' only participation was the affixing of their signatures or "adhesion" thereto.[51] A contract of adhesion is one in which a party imposes a ready-made form of contract which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify.[52]
	GR No. 150197 2005-07-28	PRUDENTIAL BANK v. DON A. ALVIAR TINGA, J.
One other crucial point. The mortgage contract, as well as the promissory notes subject of this case, is a contract of adhesion, to which respondents' only participation was the affixing of their signatures or "adhesion" thereto.[51] A contract of adhesion is one in which a party imposes a ready-made form of contract which the other party may accept or reject, but which the latter cannot modify.[52]
	GR NO. 158138 2005-04-12	PHILIPPINE BANK OF v. ELENA LIM PANGANIBAN, J.
A stipulation as to venue does not preclude the filing of the action in other places, unless qualifying or restrictive words are used in the agreement.[15]