Posted by: Petros Absalon C. Bojo, July 2018
FACTS:
Respondent Sarmiento Enterprises, Inc. filed in the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Metro Manila, a complaint for collection of the sum of P8,076 representing the cost of steel bars and MS plates purchased from it by the petitioner.
Instead of filing an answer, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue because the sales invoice, which was made an integral part of the complaint, 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 alleged that said stipulation is valid, binding, and enforceable.
The motion to dismiss was denied as well as their motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Respondent Sarmiento Enterprises, Inc. filed in the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Metro Manila, a complaint for collection of the sum of P8,076 representing the cost of steel bars and MS plates purchased from it by the petitioner.
Instead of filing an answer, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue because the sales invoice, which was made an integral part of the complaint, 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 alleged that said stipulation is valid, binding, and enforceable.
The motion to dismiss was denied as well as their motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether hether the venue of the action was properly laid in the Court of First Instance at Pasig, Metro Manila.
HELD:
Although it provides that the City Court of Manila shall have "jurisdiction" over a legal action arising from the contract, the parties must have intended 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.
The Judge's ruling that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig had jurisdiction over the private respondent's claim was erroneous because the claim of P8,076 did not exceed P20,000, which was, and still is, the minimum jurisdictional limit for a money claim in the Regional Trial Court.
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". #END
HELD:
Although it provides that the City Court of Manila shall have "jurisdiction" over a legal action arising from the contract, the parties must have intended 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.
The Judge's ruling that the Regional Trial Court of Pasig had jurisdiction over the private respondent's claim was erroneous because the claim of P8,076 did not exceed P20,000, which was, and still is, the minimum jurisdictional limit for a money claim in the Regional Trial Court.
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". #END
