G.R. No. L-37750 May 19, 1978
SWEET LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. BERNARDO TEVES, Presiding Judge, CFI of Misamis Oriental Branch VII, LEOVIGILDO TANDOG, JR., and ROGELIO TIRO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, Leovigildo Tandog, Jr. and Rogelio Tiro, purchased tickets from petitioner Sweet Lines, Inc. at its Cagayan de Oro City branch for a voyage to Tagbilaran City. Due to a change in vessel routing, they were relocated to the M/S “Sweet Town.” Allegedly forced to hide in the cargo section to avoid inspection and exposed to harsh conditions, they further claimed their original tickets were not honored, compelling them to pay for new ones. Consequently, they filed a complaint for damages and breach of contract of carriage before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of improper venue, invoking Condition No. 14 printed on the back of the tickets. This condition stipulated that “any and all actions arising out of the conditions and provisions of this ticket… shall be filed in the competent courts in the City of Cebu.” The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed this original action for Prohibition, seeking to restrain the respondent judge from proceeding with the case.

ISSUE

Is Condition No. 14, which limits the venue of actions arising from the contract of carriage exclusively to the courts of Cebu City, valid and enforceable?

RULING

No, the stipulation is not valid and enforceable. The Supreme Court ruled that such a condition constitutes a contract of adhesion, imposed by the carrier without the passenger’s meaningful consent. The ticket, containing all essential elements of a contract of carriage, is prepared solely by the carrier. Passengers, who adhere to it out of necessity, have no opportunity to bargain over its terms. The Court emphasized that while venue may generally be changed by written agreement, the stipulation here is not a product of mutual deliberation but a unilateral imposition by the carrier.
The legal logic is grounded in principles of equity and public policy. The Court held that a common carrier, performing a public service, cannot by a printed stipulation restrict the passenger’s access to courts in other competent jurisdictions. To uphold such a condition would be to sanction an unreasonable curtailment of a passenger’s right to seek redress, effectively ousting the courts of their jurisdiction. The stipulation is therefore void as contrary to public policy. The respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, and the writ of prohibition was denied. The trial court in Misamis Oriental was deemed a proper venue for the action.