SWEETLINES - v - TEVES
SWEET
LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON.
BERNARDO TEVES, Presiding Judge, CFI of Misamis Oriental Branch VII, LEOVIGILDO
TANDOG, JR., and ROGELIO TIRO, respondents.
SECOND
DIVISION, G.R. No.
L-37750 May 19, 1978, SANTOS, J.:
Facts:
1. Atty. Leovigildo Tandog and Rogelio Tiro, a
contractor by professions, bought tickets 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.
3. Upon learning that the vessel was not proceeding to
Bohol, since many passengers were bound for Surigao, private respondents per
advice, went to the branch office for proper relocation to M/S "Sweet
Town".
4. Because the said vessel was already filled to capacity, they were forced to agree "to hide at the cargo section to avoid inspection of the officers of the Philippine Coastguard."
4. Because the said vessel was already filled to capacity, they were forced to agree "to hide at the cargo section to avoid inspection of the officers of the Philippine Coastguard."
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The motion was denied by the trial court. Petitioner
moved to reconsider the order of denial, but no avail.
9. Hence, this instant petition for prohibition for
preliminary injunction, 'alleging that the respondent judge has departed from
the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding" and "had acted
without or in excess or in error of his jurisdiction or in gross abuse of
discretion.
Issue: Is
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, valid and
enforceable? Held: No.
Ruling:
-
IN SUM, We find and hold that Condition No. 14 printed at the back of
the passage tickets should be held as void and unenforceable for the following
reasons:
1.
under circumstances obligation in the inter-island shipping industry, it
is not just and fair to bind passengers to the terms of the conditions printed
at the back of the passage tickets, on which Condition No. 14 is Printed in
fine letters, and
2.
Condition No. 14 subverts the public policy on transfer of venue of
proceedings of this nature, since the same will prejudice rights and interests
of innumerable passengers in different parts of the country who, under
Condition No. 14, will have to file suits against petitioner only in the City
of Cebu.
-
It is a matter of public
knowledge, of which We can take judicial notice, that 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. (An example of contract
of adhesion)
-
Condition No. 14 is subversive of
public policy on transfers of venue of actions. For, although venue may be
changed or transferred from one province to another by agreement of the parties
in writing under 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, such as the private respondents herein.
-
Considering the expense and trouble a passenger
residing outside of Cebu City would incur to prosecute a claim in the City of
Cebu, he would most probably decide not to file the action at all. The
condition will thus defeat, instead of enhance, the ends of justice. Upon the
other hand, petitioner has branches or offices in the respective ports of call
of its vessels and can afford to litigate in any of these places. Hence, the
filing of the suit in the CFI of Misamis Oriental, as was done in the instant
case, will not cause inconvenience to, much less prejudice, petitioner.
-
Clearly, Condition No. 14, if
enforced, will be subversive of the public good or interest, since it will
frustrate in meritorious cases, actions of passenger outside of Cebu City, thus
placing petitioner company at a decided advantage over said persons, who may
have perfectly legitimate claims against it.
-
The said condition should,
therefore, be declared void and unenforceable, as contrary to public policy —
to make the courts accessible to all who may have need of their services.
Notes:
BARREDO, J., concurring:
-
In the particular case at bar, there is actually no written agreement as
to venue between the parties in the sense contemplated in Section 3 of Rule 4,
which governs the matter.
-
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
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.
