Atlas Developer & Steel Industries Inc., v. Sarmiento Enterprises Inc. Case Digest

Posted

GR No. L-64735
April 5, 1990

Facts

Respondent filed in the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Metro Manila a complaint for collection of the sum of P8,076 which represents the cost of steel bars and MS plates purchased by the petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue because the sales invoice provided that “ if legal action is resorted to for enforcing collection of this account, parties expressly submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of the City of Manila. Petitioner averred that such stipulation is valid and enforceable. On the other hand, the trial court contended that such stipulation is VOID for it already pertains to the jurisdiction of the Court and not to venue. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss and subsequent motions for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition.

Issue

Whether or not the venue of an action may be fixed by agreement of the parties.

Held

Yes. The venue of an action in the inferior court is “the place specified by the parties by means of a written agreement, whenever the court shall have jurisdiction to try the action by reason of its nature or the amount involved.” While jurisdiction cannot be fixed by the will of the parties, venue may be fixed by agreement of the parties.

Here, the sales invoice providing that the City Court of Manila shall have “jurisdiction” over a legal action means that the parties are intending to fix the venue only, for jurisdiction over an action is conferred by law, and may not be changed by mere agreement of the parties. Consequently, the stipulation fixing the venue is valid.

With that, the ruling of the trial court which provided that the CFI/RTC has jurisdiction over the case is erroneous because the claim 8,076 did not exceed P20,000, which was, and still is, the minimum jurisdictional limit for a money claim in the Regional Trial Court. Hence, the jurisdiction pertains to the MTC pursuant to Section 19 and 33 of BP 129.

Therefore, the petition for certiorari is granted. The case for collection of sum of money is dismissed.

Author
Categories Remedial Law, Civil Procedure