SWEET LINES - v - TEVES
SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. L-37750, May 19, 1978, SANTOS, J.
SWEET LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. BERNARDO TEVES, Presiding Judge, CFI of
Misamis Oriental Branch VII, LEOVIGILDO TANDOG, JR., and ROGELIO TIRO, respondents.
Facts:
1. Private
respondents Atty. Leovigildo Tandog and Rogelio Tiro, a contractor by
professions, bought tickets for Voyage 90 on December 31, 1971 at the branch
office of petitioner, a shipping company transporting inter-island passengers
and cargoes, at Cagayan de Oro City.
2. Respondents
were to board petitioner's vessel, M/S "Sweet Hope" bound for
Tagbilaran City via the port of Cebu.
4. Private
respondents alleged that they were, during the trip," "exposed to the
scorching heat of the sun and the dust coming from the ship's cargo of corn
grits," and that the tickets they bought at Cagayan de Oro City for
Tagbilaran were not honored and they were constrained to pay for other tickets.
In view thereof, private respondents sued petitioner for damages and for breach
of contract of carriage in the alleged sum of P10,000.00 before respondents
Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental.
5.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of improper venue. This motion was premised on the
condition printed at the back of the tickets, i.e., Condition No. 14, which
reads: 14. It is hereby agreed and
understood that any and all actions arising out of the conditions and
provisions of this ticket, irrespective of where it is issued, shall be filed
in the competent courts in the City of Cebu. The motion was denied
by the trial court. Petitioner moved to reconsider the order of
denial, but no avail.
6. Hence,
this instant petition for prohibition for
preliminary injunction.
Issue: Whether or not the Condition No. 14 printed
at the back of the petitioner's passage tickets purchased by private
respondents, which limits the venue of actions arising from the contract of
carriage to the Court of First Instance of Cebu is valid and enforceable. Held: No.
Ruling:
Petitioner’s
Arguments
|
Respondents’
Arguments
|
·
Condition
No. 14 is valid and enforceable, since private respondents acceded to it when
they purchased passage tickets at its Cagayan de Oro branch office and took
its vessel M/S "Sweet Town" for passage to Tagbilaran, Bohol
·
that
the condition is proper since venue may be validly waived
·
it is
printed in bold and capital letters and not in fine print
|
·
Condition
No. 14 is not valid, the same is not an essential element of the contract of
carriage, being in itself a different agreement which requires the mutual
consent of the parties to it
·
transfer
of venue requires the "written agreement of the parties", not to be
imposed unilaterally
·
the
condition was printed in fine letters
|
-
There is no question that there
was a valid contract of carriage entered into by petitioner and private
respondents and that the passage tickets, upon which the latter based their
complaint, are the best evidence thereof.
-
Peralta de Guerrero, et al. v. Madrigal
Shipping Co., Inc.,: It is a matter of common
knowledge that whenever a passenger boards a ship for transportation from one
place to another he is issued a ticket by the shipper which has all the
elements of a written contract, Namely: (1) the consent of the contracting
parties manifested by the fact that the passenger boards the ship and the
shipper consents or accepts him in the ship for transportation; (2) cause or
consideration which is the fare paid by the passenger as stated in the ticket;
(3) object, which is the transportation of the passenger from the place of
departure to the place of destination which are stated in the ticket.
-
With respect to the fourteen (14)
conditions such as in this case — these are commonly known as "contracts
of adhesion," the validity and/or enforceability of which will have to
be determined by the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each case and the
nature of the conditions or terms sought to be enforced.
-
Court finds and holds that
Condition No. 14 printed at the back of the passage tickets should be held as
void and unenforceable.
-
Judicial notice: there is a dearth of and acute shortage in inter-
island vessels plying between the country's several islands, and the facilities
they offer leave much to be desired. Under these circumstances, it is hardly
just and proper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets received from
crowded/congested counters, more often than not during rush hours, for
conditions that may be printed much charge them with having consented to the
conditions, so printed, especially if there are a number of such conditions in
fine print, as in this case.
1. Condition
No. 14 was prepared solely by petitioner, respondents had no say in its
preparation. Passengers’ alleged adhesion is presumed only from the fact that
they purchased the tickets.
-
Shipping companies are franchise
holders of certificates of public convenience and therefore, possess a virtual
monopoly over the business of transporting passengers between the ports covered
by their franchise. This being so, they may dictate their terms of passage,
leaving passengers with no choice but to buy their tickets and avail of their
vessels and facilities.
2. Condition
No. 14 is subversive of public policy on transfers of venue of actions. Although
venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by agreement
of the parties in writing pursuant to Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules of Court,
such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the
action of the claimants.
-
The condition will thus defeat,
instead of enhance, the ends of justice.
-
WHEREFORE, the petition for
prohibition is DISMISSED. The restraining order issued on November 20, 1973, is
hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE. Costs against petitioner.
BARREDO, J., concurring:
-
The ticket issued to private
respondents by petitioner constitutes at best a "contract of
adhesion".
-
It is not that kind of a contract
where the parties sit down to deliberate, discuss and agree specifically on all
its terms, but rather, one which respondents took no part at all in preparing,
since it was just imposed upon them when they paid for the fare for the freight
they wanted to ship.
-
It is common knowledge that
individuals who avail of common carriers hardly read the fine prints on such
tickets to note anything more than the price thereof and the destination
designated therein.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.