G.R. NO. 171456. August 09, 2007 (Case Brief / Digest)

Title: Uniwide Holdings, Inc. vs. Alexander M. Cruz

Uniwide Holdings, Inc. (UHI), based in Parañaque City, entered into a Franchise Agreement with Alexander M. Cruz, granting him a five-year franchise to operate a Uniwide Family Store in Marikina City. Per the agreement, Cruz was to pay a monthly service fee to UHI. Cruz later incurred debts to UHI and its affiliates, First Paragon Corporation (FPC) and Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. (USWCI), which subsequently assigned their receivable accounts from Cruz to UHI. Cruz failed to settle these obligations despite demand, leading UHI to file a complaint for collection of sum of money against him, citing four causes of action related to the unpaid monthly service fees and the assigned debts.

Cruz moved to dismiss the complaint based on improper venue, referencing the Franchise Agreement’s exclusive venue stipulation for courts in Quezon City. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque granted Cruz’s motion, prompting UHI to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether a case involving several causes of action, only one of which arises from a contract with an exclusive venue stipulation, is dismissible on the ground of improper venue.

Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of UHI, holding that the exclusive venue stipulation in the Franchise Agreement did not apply to all causes of action presented in the complaint, particularly those based on the deeds of assignment from FPC and USWCI to UHI, which were independent contracts without any venue stipulation. The Court emphasized that exclusive venue stipulations should be interpreted strictly and confined to the specific agreement they pertain to. It directed the RTC to reinstate the case to its docket for further proceedings.

Exclusive venue stipulations are interpreted strictly and are applicable only to disputes arising directly from the contract in which they are specified. Multiple causes of actions, if involving separate agreements or transactions not covered by an exclusive venue clause, are not bound by such restrictions and should be assessed based on general venue provisions.

Class Notes:
– Exclusive venue stipulation applicability: Exclusive venue stipulations bind the parties only in disputes directly arising from the contract in question. Disputes arising from other agreements, even between the same parties, may not be subject to such stipulations.
– Joinder of causes of action: Parties may assert multiple causes of action in one pleading, subject to specific conditions, including the compatibility of venue and jurisdiction for the joined causes.
– Venue of personal actions: By general rule, personal actions can be commenced where any of the principal parties reside, unless a valid exclusive venue agreement specifies otherwise.

Historical Background:
This case illustrates the judiciary’s approach towards ensuring that contractual stipulations, particularly those concerning venue, do not overly restrict access to legal remedies or the ability to seek justice in courts more convenient to one or both parties involved. It emphasizes the balancing act courts perform between respecting the autonomy of contractual agreements and preventing potential injustices that stringent interpretations of such agreements might entail.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters