G.R. No. L-68111 December 20, 1988
BERNOLI P. ARQUERO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE NAPOLEON J. FLOJO, Presiding Judge, Branch VI, Regional Trial Court, Second Judicial Region, Aparri, Cagayan and RADIO COMMUNICATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (RCPI), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bernoli P. Arquero, a lawyer and municipal mayor, entered into a contract for services with respondent Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) on November 27, 1983, for the transmission of a telegram. The standard printed contract form contained a stipulation, clearly printed on its upper front portion, stating that any complaint relative to the telegram’s transmittal must be brought in the courts of Quezon City alone. The telegram was delivered to the recipient, Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan, who was made to pay delivery charges. This incident led to a confrontation where Arquero was allegedly insulted in public.
Arquero subsequently filed an action for damages against RCPI before the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan. RCPI moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper venue, invoking the exclusive venue stipulation in the contract. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, prompting Arquero to elevate the matter via the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether the stipulation limiting the venue of actions to the courts of Quezon City, printed on RCPI’s standard contract form, is valid and enforceable against the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the venue stipulation and dismissed the petition. The Court distinguished this case from Sweet Lines, Inc. v. Teves, which declared similar stipulations in contracts of adhesion void under specific circumstances involving public transportation. The ruling in Sweet Lines was predicated on the gross inequality between the parties, the virtual monopoly of the carrier, the public’s lack of meaningful choice, and the often rushed and congested conditions under which such tickets are purchased.
In contrast, the Court found the circumstances surrounding Arquero’s contract with RCPI materially different. The venue condition was printed clearly and conspicuously on the form. More importantly, the petitioner was a lawyer and a municipal mayor, and as such, was charged with notice of the terms to which he affixed his signature. His educational and professional attainment negated any claim of being in a position of disadvantage or lack of understanding. The contract was not shown to be against law, public order, or morals. Under Section 3, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, parties may by written agreement change the venue of an action, and such a waiver of the legal venue is a personal privilege that is valid and effective. Therefore, the parties were bound by their agreement to litigate exclusively in Quezon City, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case filed in Aparri, Cagayan, for improper venue.